I’m a 15 yr old sergeant and I am only a leading cadet. I know a lot of corporals in my wing that are older and have a higher class don’t like the fact I out rank them. But I can do almost everything better than them so what does everyone think? Should it be leading for corporal, senior for sergeant and master for flight sergeant and CWO?
No. It’s all well and dandy stipulating a certain classification but if a cadet is showing sterling leadership qualities I don’t see why their academic achievements should be held against them.
I think the primary concern is that a low classification indicates lack of experience in some eyes although with Ultilearn the classification system means very little now (unless administered properly)
you appoint (or should do…) cadet NCO’s on the basis of ‘who do you trust to make good choices on behalf of some 14yo’s who find themselves lost, cold and wet in the middle of Dartmoor in the gloom of twilight without an adult for miles?’.
their knowledge of the principles of flight, or of the organisation of RAF is something of an irrelevence at such a point - only man-management, leadership, integrity and level-headedness matters when the liquified faecal matter starts flying.
I’m going to come in and say that Classification should be just one of several factors considered.
As stated above of far more importance is the level of maturity and leadership quality someone displays, along with their ability to make sensible and safe decisions, understand the limits of their authority etc etc.
However in an ideal world they will also be progressing through their classifications and have a wide experience of other ACO activities, as they need to be a role model for other cadets, and be able to answer questions like what happens when I go flying, How does this compass thing work etc.
I would suggest the link in the OP is not a bad guide, but it is just that, and not a hard and fast rule.
Also of course one has to ask why the NCO in question is not progressing through their classifications. It can be the Squadron set up that has taken them away from their studies prematurely, and so it is not necessarily the individual at fault.
MW
It’s all about perception. I like cadets to go on a residential camp of some description as they get a broader view of the ATC at work, as opposed to the closetted average sqn, but in the modern day it’s not always possible.
Classification always did infer a degree of experience of the Corps and to be an NCO you need experience so that you can answer questions and have an understanding of how to deal with situations. But in the modern exam system everyone should be able to pass the exams with relative ease, so maybe classificaton is not such a good indicator.
The better way is as I say get out there (go on camps, courses and activities) and observe different NCOs and learn from them. It’s all well and good coming with phrases like man management, leadership, integrity etc. But how many “natural leaders” do we get come through the door? I remember watching NCOs when I first joined and then developing my own style and I know one senior WSO who was a cadet when I was a FS and has said I was one of his role models.
on the three sqn’s i’ve been on, lots.
all of my sqn’s have been ‘average’ - average parental income, average schools, average towns - none of them near service bases, none of them with public school catchments, just average.
in not one of those sqn’s could i not have two decent Cpl’s for every 10/12 cadets, and in not one of those sqn’s was there not 3/4 decent cadet SNCO’s at any one time. of course, some of them weren’t SNCO’s while the SNCO slots were taken up with utter throbbers - but i reckon that if you dumped any sqn in the ATC on a desert island about a quarter of them would have decent, natural leadership ability.
the trick is identifying it…
Even so if they haven’t got a practical and academic knowledge of the Corps, by which I mean by experience of activities and book/classifcation, they may be JNCO material at a push without it but not SNCO.
I’ve had a couple of generations of squadron sitters who I’ve had to promote and thankfully the last 2 intakes have spawned a few who are showing more of the attributes I look for.
As for the Lord of the Flies scenario; leaders yes, good leaders questionable.
Am I too late to reply?
I agree with most of the above so I won’t repeat, but instead will pop in my 2 cents worth with my story.
I joined the Corps with prior experience in the CCF (bash all you want) and had experience, but I chose to have a separate service number so started from the bottom [a blank brassard and epaulet so to speak]. (Who respects someone who transfers rank from the CCF!?)
I received my leading classification on the same day as Cpl, but due to time never took the 3 modules for Senior (I was already A level and had issues juggling CCF/ballet/ATC). Progressed through to FS whilst remaining at Leading. Most people don’t notice if you can lead properly, but if they notice and have no idea of your history it can present a few issues with people questioning whether you’re experienced enough.
Ultimately its a staff decision on how you progress with rank. Within the squadron it tends to be okay as everyone is aware of your abilities, but outside the squadron the cadet will always have to be careful. I eventually got my senior, and they promoted me to CWO not a few weeks later. Classifications are still a requirement for certain ranks, as shown, but if the OC feels he can bend it enough then you’ll be capable (there aren’t many Senior CWOs - I’ll give you that!). I have always had good knowledge of the Corps, and good experience, but simply not had the time to study the technical knowledge for classification modules…
It depends, but from personal experience it can help. A lot. I don’t regret the route I took (for various other reasons) but for others it could present a whole load of other issues so to sum it up:
I’d say its advisable but not compulsory…
I can only agree with what has already been said. I’ve known MANY cadets with Staff Cadet/Instructor Cadet on their shoulder who you wouldn’t trust to lead a dog, let alone a group of their peers.
Why are they being retained? If someone isn’t capable of being a responsible adult, then why are they being asked to take up a position that requires it?
One of the things that truly gets my goat about the ATC.
Why are they being retained? If someone isn’t capable of being a responsible adult, then why are they being asked to take up a position that requires it?
One of the things that truly gets my goat about the ATC.[/quote]
It depends who you feel the ATC is for and what it is about.
The phrase ‘responsible adult’ is interesing given how irresponsibly many adults act, when it could be argued they should know better. I know of ½ dozen or so broken marriages in the Corps due to adult staff acting irrepsonsibly but there never seems to be any comeback via the organisation. I’ve seen staff doing things at dinners, that if it were cadets there’d be ructions and stiff chats had. This is probably my biggest beef about the way the organisation treats those cadets over 18. They are told on the one hand we expect this, this and this and people get all snotty if they don’t live up to the expectation and then in the same breath all the documentation says you can’t do things you’re entitled to by law while a cadet in the ATC doing ATC things. Granted it has always been like that, but since 2003 it seems to have got more formalised. Prior to 2003 no one was turned away for not ticking some boxes and many of these continued to adult staff and gone onto senior roles. I’ve had some bloody good NCOs say in effect it’s not worth the hassle when I’ve got all the other things in my life to contend with. I know other OCs who have had the same. IMO the Corps has lost some bloody good potential adult staff, in cadets who’ll probably never darken the Corps’ door, because of ridiculous policies.
Why are they being retained? If someone isn’t capable of being a responsible adult, then why are they being asked to take up a position that requires it?
One of the things that truly gets my goat about the ATC.[/quote]
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. My point was that these cadets have NOT been promoted, despite being Staff (in old money) or Instructor (new money) Cadets, because they were utterly worthless leaders. Their personality traits (or lack of same) outweighed their academic ability when deciding promotion.