As for not being old enough most SNCO’s are older than Officers anyway as it takes a lot longer to work up to SGT[/quote]
In my opinion, the best holding post for a commissioned officer is CI. Then, the best training rank for Squadron Commander is Pilot Officer not Sergeant. At the age of 20 who cares about long service medals? That’s not why we do this. If you really want a commission, do time as a CI, that’s a test of anyone’s commitment as it isn’t an easy role. If all you want is uniform, and can’t give it up for a year, you’re focusing on the wrong thing.
We should stop seeing SNCO as a holding rank, it is a completely separate role and structure. What annoys me is that this organisation completely mishandles potential junior officers. It does its absolute best to put people off joining up as officers at 20 and has a preference for young SNCOs and older officers. The opposite of the rest of the armed forces where older, more experiences NCOs teach junior officers.
What the organisation also does is over-burden those few junior officers who do persevere to a commission. Most being (in my experience) made flight lieutenants before even doing two years. What happens then? They resign from stress because there are too few officers to spread the load. Which then puts off anyone else. What the organisation should do is aim to recruit more younger officers then introduce a system whereby, except if there is no alternative, you cannot take on a unit before reaching flying officer through time served. This would stop younger people being scared off by the horror stories of the Pilot Officer single handedly running a Detached Flight, or the Officer Cadet being appointed CO of a founder unit. (both true stories) Also, if there are more officers to do the paperwork, we all do less of it. The lies told about officers doing all paperwork and SNCOs all cadet training are just that. Lies. More Junior Officers now, means more, better prepared squadron commanders a few years down the line.
The focus for staff recruitment and development should be on the staff structure we want in 5 years and then take 5 years to see it through, not focus on the staff structure we want now, and push people into positions they simply are not ready for or not suited for.
Just bin off SNCOs altogether and go fully commisioned. Gets rid of the VRT/non-VRT business that affects things like weapon moves. No real reason it couldn’t work other than resistance to change. I thank you, all the ACOs problems solved in one swoop. Well maybe not all of them…
My line is you decide and then we’ll discuss it, ie you decide which uniform route you wish to take, but you do this by attending camps and general events as adult staff and observing the differences and when you’ve decided we’ll talk about it. While people are CIs I give them tasks such as organising events (with about 2 months lead time) to see if they have the ‘ability’ to plan and execute things and get people doing things they might not want to. I reckon to get a quarter of activities come to fruition, which is OK. I’m pretty sure where I see them and mostly they do. Some have ideas a bit beyond them and are let down gently.
Given that in my time I’ve seen far more people take commissions (mostly directly from cadet service) as their first step and when the pressure (family, work, life on top of ATC) ramps up they start to waiver and leave, than stick at it. With this in mind I must admit to quite liking the notion of SNCO as an ‘acclimatisation’ step. Given that if most Wings are like ours and at about 55% of the number of Officers required (slightly more SNCOs) if having a number do the SNCO bit first and then Commission later, means we get more Officers who are better informed and experienced, it can’t be a bad thing. While the role of SNCO and Officer are different but the lines IMO get more blurred all the time, thus spending time as an SNCO can be useful.
[quote=“Dasonix” post=10346]Answers to the questions.
Yes wing are holding up the paperwork intil SSIC is done.
Baldrick, How about if one of these Pre ATF SGT’s were to be handed a DF to run. (he is in his 30’s though)[/quote]
Same problem. I find it difficult to understand how we can expect someone to run a unit without a proper understanding of all the jobs that a Training Officer and an Adj do? When you know what their roles are then you can lead them effectively. While many people do learn to be Squadron Commanders ‘on the job’ and do it well, often through little choice. Where there is a choice, say of an experienced SNCO or WO to lead the unit, leave them in post and give the junior officer time to learn their trade effectively.
It’s been that way for many years. The main problem we have had is not enough new officers coming through (for at least the last 15ish years), so that when a command is “up for grabs” (not that many grab at it) the arm twisting that goes to get some poor sod into the job is remarkable. Whether or not you need to be experienced in things like TO or Adj (although the latter is distinct bonus in the modern ATC) is debatable, as the role of a CO is to manage the people around them. IMO you need to spend at least 3 years as TO and Adj to have sufficient experience, doing it for a few months isn’t enough. But then as OC there are freight load of other ‘roles’ you need to be equally as aware of.
My biggest concern with some people taking a command, especially younger ones, is mental resilience and ‘people skill’, which for me the larger part is dealing with problems that staff and parents pop up with and being confident enough handle the potential fall out. I personally feel (controversial perhaps) this where spending a stint as an SNCO would be a distinct advantage, as you have to deal with discip matters and at times be ‘the first line of defence’ when problems crop up, this sort of experience is to me more valuable than any. I know when I was a Squadron Warrant Officer I dealt with things and advised the OC and only passed it ‘up the chain’ if it didn’t go away after my intervention and more often than not sat in when the OC was dealing with things. I do this now with my SNCOs. They don’t like it, hey ho.
If they’re intending to put him forward for a commission then just put him forward. There’s nothing to be gained from attending SSIC as a Sgt if he’s then immediately going to apply to resign his SNCO status.
Absolutely the most retarded idea I’ve heard this week. How do these people dream up such convoluted plans?
One question I would ask is how long have they been an adult Sgt?
If the individual in question hasn’t done their ATF course within their first year as an SNCO then I would agree with the decision not to progress their paperwork until they’ve done their course. If they can’t be bothered to do their SSIC and comply with the training requirements what evidence is there that they’ll do their IOC within time?
There’s something not ringing true bout this incidence and I suspect their may be more background issues regarding the individuals than has previously mentioned.
If its an admin cock up or the individual has been indecisive about the role to apply for then I can understand how its happened. However it appears there are two solutions to this. This individual either -
1)Does the course, continues to parade as a SGT(ATC) and continues applying for their commission.
2)Resign as a Sgt and apply for VR(T) as a CI
If the individual doesn’t want to be a Sgt then they go for option two. If they are mainly interested in wearing uniform & the authority then go for option 1 although I would then question whether they would be suited to the organisation.
That is the theoretical position but does not seem to be enforced at the moment, though the intention is to change that. Even so, there may be legitimate reasons why a person may not be able to make their course within a year but I’d suggest that should be approved at Regional level.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=10368]One question I would ask is how long have they been an adult Sgt?
If the individual in question hasn’t done their ATF course within their first year as an SNCO then I would agree with the decision not to progress their paperwork until they’ve done their course. If they can’t be bothered to do their SSIC and comply with the training requirements what evidence is there that they’ll do their IOC within time?
There’s something not ringing true bout this incidence and I suspect their may be more background issues regarding the individuals than has previously mentioned.
If its an admin cock up or the individual has been indecisive about the role to apply for then I can understand how its happened. However it appears there are two solutions to this. This individual either -
1)Does the course, continues to parade as a SGT(ATC) and continues applying for their commission.
2)Resign as a Sgt and apply for VR(T) as a CI
If the individual doesn’t want to be a Sgt then they go for option two. If they are mainly interested in wearing uniform & the authority then go for option 1 although I would then question whether they would be suited to the organisation.
Over Simplistic - maybe, but solves the problem[/quote]
Agreed - the problem here lies with the OC and the Sector Officer not correctly interviewing the Candidate to understand long term aspirations - as the desire to go Officer would have been established and the position of SGT(ATC) not offered if it is felt the candidate is suitable to go straight to OASC.
If it’s a case that all CWO’s (in this area) get SGT(ATC) straight after timing out and prompting this situation - presuambly no interiews given - then there is something seriously wrong with that.
That is the theoretical position but does not seem to be enforced at the moment, though the intention is to change that. Even so, there may be legitimate reasons why a person may not be able to make their course within a year but I’d suggest that should be approved at Regional level.[/quote]
My bold - surely policy should be enforced as soon as it is circulated into the system? No wonder they have had to introduce White Tabs to shame people to go to SSIC - the CoC should have the gumption to enforce the policy on those without very good reasons for attending. It might indirectly improve the calibre of the new NCO Cadre’s going through?
That is the theoretical position but does not seem to be enforced at the moment, though the intention is to change that. Even so, there may be legitimate reasons why a person may not be able to make their course within a year but I’d suggest that should be approved at Regional level.[/quote]n
My bold - surely policy should be enforced as soon as it is circulated into the system? No wonder they have had to introduce White Tabs to shame people to go to SSIC - the CoC should have the gumption to enforce the policy on those without very good reasons for attending. It might indirectly improve the calibre of the new NCO Cadre’s going through?[/quote]
You can only enforce the policy rigidly if and only if ATF don’t cancel courses. If you are booked on a course and it gets cancelled, I don’t about where you work, but in the modern era holidays are booked a year or more in advance, we booked our holiday next July this April, just so I knew I could get the dates I wanted and not have to start faffing around.
Put this into the context of an OIC or SSIC, you don’t have a clue if or when your appointment will come and therefore you have to work around the gaps left at work. Our policy at work is no more than one with planned leave, some course for a hobby wouldn’t be enough to be an exception. This doesn’t take into account personal stuff, would you really want to be away at ATF if a close family member was “on their last legs”, died or your wife/girlfriend was expecting.
Oh yes and this doesn’t take into account people who work in schools and can’t take term time holiday. A teacher friend of mine took nearly 2 years to get to do their OIC.
The white tabs thing smacks of a temper tantrum by people in charge who are clueless about the reality of the volunteer staff in the ATC. What propotion of newly appointed SNCO and Officers fail to attend withing 12 months?
That is the theoretical position but does not seem to be enforced at the moment, though the intention is to change that. Even so, there may be legitimate reasons why a person may not be able to make their course within a year but I’d suggest that should be approved at Regional level.[/quote]n
My bold - surely policy should be enforced as soon as it is circulated into the system? No wonder they have had to introduce White Tabs to shame people to go to SSIC - the CoC should have the gumption to enforce the policy on those without very good reasons for attending. It might indirectly improve the calibre of the new NCO Cadre’s going through?[/quote]
You can only enforce the policy rigidly if and only if ATF don’t cancel courses. If you are booked on a course and it gets cancelled, I don’t about where you work, but in the modern era holidays are booked a year or more in advance, we booked our holiday next July this April, just so I knew I could get the dates I wanted and not have to start faffing around.
Put this into the context of an OIC or SSIC, you don’t have a clue if or when your appointment will come and therefore you have to work around the gaps left at work. Our policy at work is no more than one with planned leave, some course for a hobby wouldn’t be enough to be an exception. This doesn’t take into account personal stuff, would you really want to be away at ATF if a close family member was “on their last legs”, died or your wife/girlfriend was expecting.
Oh yes and this doesn’t take into account people who work in schools and can’t take term time holiday. A teacher friend of mine took nearly 2 years to get to do their OIC.
The white tabs thing smacks of a temper tantrum by people in charge who are clueless about the reality of the volunteer staff in the ATC. What propotion of newly appointed SNCO and Officers fail to attend withing 12 months?[/quote]
Perhaps another valid point. This guy is wasting a space on a course! Those things fill up months in advance. So by sending him to SSIC, then OIC a year later is a waste of an SSIC place for someone who actually needs it. (I don’t blame the guy, I blame his wing.)
I disagree. I think it would only look that way if one considers the white tabs to be an attempt to shame or embaress people into getting on their courses sooner; or to punish those who don’t make such an effort.
That’s not the case.
The white tabs serve the same purpose for our staff as they do for RAF personnel - they identify someone who has not yet completed their initial training.
It’s not only a logical introduction, I think it’s a very sensible one.
I disagree. I think it would only look that way if one considers the white tabs to be an attempt to shame or embaress people into getting on their courses sooner; or to punish those who don’t make such an effort.
That’s not the case.
The white tabs serve the same purpose for our staff as they do for RAF personnel - they identify someone who has not yet completed their initial training.[/quote]
This prompts the question why haven’t the ATC been doing it like this since time immemorial?
But as I said how many newly appointed SNCOs and Officers don’t attend initial courses within 12 months, what are the numbers? If it’s half or more, then the question is why not? My last SNCO took 14 months because the first 4 close to his appt were full (he was offered a reserve slot but due to drop outs but couldn’t get the time off) and the others clashed with his personal holiday or people where he worked already had holiday booked. When he had his board he was fully up for it, but you have no control over reality.
This is why it smacks of a ejecting teddies.
Just like the last CAC making ACTIs ACTOs because “CFAV can’t follow instructions so we’ll nake them orders”, which I think was the quote I saw alluded to. What that really meant was rather than just follow blindly whether it worked or not, we adapted to suit the local situation … oh just like I do now they aren’t ACTIs.
At work no one follows the rules as laid down, due to local circustances and they pay my bills, so why I would do so in my hobby is beyond me. I bet even in the RAF no one follows every order as laid down to the letter.
Well, that I can’t answer. But I think it’s better late than never.
That would be interesting to know.
I still don’t see the white tabs as a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with wearing tabs - it just means that person is not yet initially trained.
If people are embaressed or ashamed to wear them, I think that says more about their own confidence than it does about the system.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=10416]I still don’t see the white tabs as a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with wearing tabs - it just means that person is not yet initially trained.
If people are embaressed or ashamed to wear them, I think that says more about their own confidence than it does about the system.[/quote]
I tend to agree. In certain circumstances it would be useful to know whether or not someone has had their initial training, e.g. if assisting at a Wing event, and white tabs are quick way to identify those people without having to ask every Sgt at every event.
If and when I go forward for Sgt, I certainly wouldn’t be embarrassed to wear white tabs - I just don’t see the logic behind having them below the rank slides?
[quote=“RightOn” post=10435][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=10416]
If and when I go forward for Sgt, I certainly wouldn’t be embarrassed to wear white tabs - I just don’t see the logic behind having them below the rank slides?[/quote]
Has that been confirmed as the new way to wear them? AFAIK it was only word of mouth from someone who has just come back from SSIC?
