You’re not suggesting to a potential cadet to join a neighbouring squadron, you are saying to the parent you can travel another x miles twice a week, but probably more for pick ups, drop offs and other things, rather than join your local squadron.
Due to the vagaries of parental school choice, I have got cadets travelling from near to two neighbouring squadrons (c.6 miles each away), because the mate(s) of their children come to our sqn. The parents are advised and it’s then for them to discuss with son(s)/daughter(s) and make their choice.
This equally applies to potential staff and saying go to a sqn that is x miles away as opposed to volunteering your services to the local youth. This was the approach taken in the last two staff recruitment campaigns, which were a blinding success … not.
That’s what I was trying to say, the squadrons that are turning cadets away because they are too big, should recommend other local squadrons. I’m not saying that’s what I would do, I’d never turn a potential cadet away. I’ve had cadets transfer to and from one of my previous squadrons as they lived closer. I have no problems with this at all, if it easier for the parent and the cadet is happy, then it’s alright. Same with cadets joining due to friends at the squadron. I’m all for good staff training, good cadet training, a better corps.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17969]How would you suggest reducing staff and cadets simultaneously? If I’m honest our CoC and others are doing all within their power to reduce cadet and staff numbers, by stopping flying and making it bloody awkward to deliver things. But not in the elitest manner suggested, so that we only keep the percieved cream.
Then how without making the the Corps look like an elitist volunteer youth organisation WRT adults staff, do you get people back in? If you make it elitist you would need to offer more of an inducement for all the extra grief it would bring. Also potentially create more of a gap between the uniformed and non-uniformed side than some regard as existing now and it could become more of a handful for the sqn cdr. The last time I was at the squadron there wasn’t a queue of adults nor have I had an inbox full of people all looking to become staff so that we could go ip dip etc. Like it or not we have and always have had “good” and “not so good” staff, as a squadron commander I respect and accept that. The task for me is to try and find things that means they all contribute.
Also as many who’ve been around for a while will testify on a squadron having the balance of staff to cadets and vice versa is virtually impossible and to artificially tinker with it, is just asking for trouble.[/quote]
I clicked Thank You for the bit in Bold. This is a fundamental issue in the Corps, particularly legacy CoC issues, but I see that the Flying and Gliding issues have really been 3rd Parties to blame. But thats another conversation.
To be clear - I am not suggesting that we become Elitist - I am suggesting that we become more Professional. This might mean being able to meet a defined minimum criteria and regulating it.
I am not suggesting that this criteria is filtered down to Cadets.
The intangible benefits of a more Professional Youth Organisation is that we shed the view held by some (i.e. we’re Walts, Wannabe’s, Fiddlers etc.) and are actually regarded and respected for what we are (if SNCO VR(T) goes through) - members of a Reserve Force whose role is to train Young people in the Principle aims of the Corps.
[quote=“noah claypole” post=17990]To be clear - I am not suggesting that we become Elitist - I am suggesting that we become more Professional. This might mean being able to meet a defined minimum criteria and regulating it.
The intangible benefits of a more Professional Youth Organisation is that we shed the view held by some (i.e. we’re Walts, Wannabe’s, Fiddlers etc.) and are actually regarded and respected for what we are (if SNCO VR(T) goes through) - members of a Reserve Force whose role is to train Young people in the Principle aims of the Corps.[/quote]
What we do need is clear guidance from on high what they expect staff and if professional is part of that, what that look like and not just asthetically. I like to think I act professionally and do things correctly, despite feeling most of the processes get in the way.
You are not going to change people’s perceptions of people volunteering for uniformed youth organisations, especially the cadet forces just because you have a different selection process and criteria.
If we are going to go down this route we must have selection processes carefully constructed and tailored so that they are symapathetic to all those who look to join as staff, from the 20 something to the 40 something plus. The OASC process currently in place, doesn’t seem to fit all. From listening to people who’ve been to OASC the 20 somethings seem to come back gushing, while anyone over 35 with a bit more life under their belt is somewhat more reserved and critical of the whole process, not that they tell OASC for fear of an immediate rejection, as they aren’t sure they are able to take a critique of the process. Given that we want or should have, SNCOs who are that little bit older, if they were going to go through an OASC process, I don’t think slinging them into the standard affair, would be beneficial. I felt that doing the hangar exercises when I was in my early 30s, when I went on my OIC, was a bit of a nonsense and just a box to tick, as they served little in terms of relevance to what I do with the ATC. Not sure they do wrt the regulars. I think there should be greater importance troughout the process, via role play, of dealing with situations that arise and an assessment of that, rather than “shark infested custard” scenarios. I’m sure that anyone who has been a sqn cdr for a while could contribute situations pertaining to staff and cadets and CWC. Much of an individual’s ability to lead a squadron comes from how they deal with things that arise / come through the door. I’ve been a first aider since the late 80s and my ability to be a first aider is assessed by dealing with first aid situations that may well present themselves, as opposed to something I’m never going to encounter.
However before looking at us being more professioanal I think we need admin staff across the organisation who are more professional and deal with things in a professional manner and fully understand what we do. Some of the conversations I and others have had with admin staff, leave you shaking your head. They phone or email you at work and expect you to drop and or know and or deal with everything there and or there is a ridiculous deadline, they seem to forget they do ATC things to get a salary, we don’t. But say or allude to this and they get the hump pretty quick.
Having had time to read and digest GHE2’s ‘War & Peace’, I thought I’d add a sequel to the points he raises.
I tend to agree. What HQAC do is follow the militaristic procedure and say ‘do this’ often without telling us [I]why[/I]. I think part of what they forget is that the ACO isn’t staffed by regulars who are conditioned to unquestionably follow orders. In civilian life. a lot of us hold professional roles, quite often in senior positions and so are used to asking ‘why?’ whenever an instruction is issued without any rationale appearing to underpin it. As a former serviceman, I can often see what the rationale is without having to question it but there are times when even I wonder ‘wtf?’
I feel that those coming into the organization, even ex-cadets, should be thoroughly and formally appraised of what is expected of being a uniformed member of staff. One could argue though, that even as serving as a CI, it would open ones eyes as to what is actually expected.
If we look at the how the regular RAF work (or did in my day), maybe it might begin to make a little bit of sense as to why the current training regime is structured as it is. For example, when one joins the RAF as a direct-entry officer, one goes to Cranwell where they teach you - amongst other things - how to [I]be[/I] an officer. RAF history, Air Power, leadership, how to behave in the mess, drill, regulations and administrative procedures, basic weapon handling etc etc.
This is a ‘common’ unit of the training, applicable to all RAF officers, give or take. If one has joined to be a Regiment officer, there is very little or no slant on how to [I]be[/I] a Regiment Officer. This starts at Phase 2 when one goes to the Depot for a further 20-odd weeks on JROC. THIS teaches the officer how to use weapons systems and generally become a soldier and leader of men.
What I would call ‘Phase 3’ is where the newly-fledged Regiment JO is posted to an operational Sqn. THIS is where its the job of the Sqn WO and SNCO’s on the Flight he has been appointed to lead, to keep the JO on the straight and narrow until he gains sufficient experience.
So, maybe the ACO is ran along similar lines but in two ‘phases’?:
Phase 1 at OIC. How to be an RAFVR(T) officer, regulations, drill, practical leadership, some child protection training etc.
Phase 2 at the Sqn. This is where the newly-commissioned officer learns to fulfil different roles and deal with issues particular to a youth organization especially in relation to parents, CWC’s, child welfare issues etc. The Sqn OC under ACTO94 is responsible for the JO’s development; assisted by the Sqn WO and SNCO’s. When the JO has ‘gone through the system’ and gained the necessary experience, he [I]should[/I] be ready to take command of his own Sqn. Perhaps this is where the system fails with inexperienced officers (and now SNCO’s) being placed into command positions far too early.
Again, I tend to agree. However, is this any different to being on a committee connected to any other hobby? Lets say you’re on the committee of your local Art Society. I daresay that you’d have the chairman, secretary and members ringing you up or emailing you on a daily basis to obtain information about upcoming events, exhibitions, meetings, sub-committee elections and a myriad other things. My mother-in-law is a member of an Art Society and this is exactly what happens, so is the ATC really that much different?
I suppose what I’m saying here is, if you join an organization, make sure you know what’s expected of you beforehand so you can make an informed judgement. There’s no point in seeing what happens and still taking the shilling and then complaining about what you have to do when somebody asks you to do it.
A classic of the not saying “why” is the recent ban of overnight FMS activities. Not telling us why we can’t (we don’t need full details), is like saying to children no you can’t because mum and or dad have said so, and should they be surprised about the responses they get? We are all able to make sensible rational decisions if given the information, rather than just puuting out an edict with no rationale. But as you say it’s the military way information is disseminated and you are expected to roll over for a belly rub.
I increasingly believe that everyone should serve time as a CI (even ex-cadets) so that they can see the organisation properly, but unfortunately the organisation and or many individuals in it are not IMO prepared to allow this time for people to garner an understanding of the organisation. We should have a proper CI induction course covering what is done in basic cadet training but maybe more depth, where the whys and wherefores of the Corps are covered and there is no pressure to go for uniform, with at least 2 years before any sort of uniform can be looked at. This gets people over any initital potential excitement about a uniformed role, where a mistake could be made on several fronts.
All of my staff have been CIs before going into uniform. I’ve got 6 CIs (2 ex-cadets) who have categorically said no to an adult uniform role until they want to do it. My senior WSO tried to give me a rollicking as I’m not in his opinion encouraging them into uniform and didn’t like when I said it’s their choice and not for me or him to coerce them. My view is being a CI allows you to live a little especially for the youngsters, get out there make mistakes where people turn a blind eye, rather than in uniform, where a mistake can be jumped on and remembered for a long time.
GHE2, I agree on the CI route for the initial entry. I did this route and used the time to gain personnal experience in Kayaking without the need to attend unit activities. I had a 2 year break in uniform and by the time I was interviewed I had this out of my system. I think it is a good route but the unit needs to keep good ties and manage the people. Its also the start of any career and many different directions. We need to give people the space to develop. I would like to see a covenant wtih cadets that they would give back something. Weather that be time or support at some piont in the future. It would be interesting to get the stats on staff retention by age and length of service.
I basically (other than a couple of month wait for my second board) went straight from cadet to officer - never did me any harm.
If we’re that short of officers and are having to put new ones in charge, I’d much rather have a 24 year-old who’s done 4 years as an officer in charge than the same 24 year old after 2 years as a CI and 2 years as an officer.
I agree that people shouldn’t be coerced into uniform, but I see no value in forcing people to be CIs either.
The problem is different people’s different experiences. The going straight to adult uniform from cadet is affected largely by how they are treated.
I see too many cadets effectively pushed into adult uniform and then shunted off to another sqn and given roles/jobs they aren’t prepared for with little or no support, because the staff don’t have the time to do it. I’ve had a couple over the years and done my best to get them doing things, but I feel their heart is back at their home sqn, because they know they’ve only got a year with me. I’ve not had any since Bader, but I know from others getting them on their staff lists through SMS can be a task.
Personally I would sooner have someone running a sqn who has a bit more life and Corps experience under their belts. But then as I say this requires processes that respect the older candidates.
I’ve seen a lot of new staff pushed into roles they’re not prepared for.
Some ex cadet, some not. Some young, some older. CIs, and uniformed.
As you say, often times the staff simply don’t have the time to properly devote to training someone for the roll.
It’s a case of ‘we need a DofE Officer/Training Officer/Supply Officer… Bloggs, how do you fancy being…?’
We [our Wing] do already have this type of system, we have NCO/Officer development plans. They spend time going through core elements of being a NCO/Officer for around 2 years. Their OC/WSO/WTO have to be happy to sign them off. Although this may not stop the issue of a new officer having to take an Acting OC position if staff are limited, at least they will have something to work through.
Some of the esteemed membership may recall the Officers’ Continuing Development Programme (OCDP) which was introduced for Regular officers in the early 90s and which tried to do exactly as Finkbat has outlined above. The Programme came in a natty ‘filofax’ type folder for the students workpack and a similarly packaged guide for their supervisors, I’ve still got one somewhere. It was a nice idea and if done correctly, would have worked quite well. The problem was that it was open to a lot of abuse and Sqn Cdrs/supervisors would routinely sign off elements without the proper evidence that their jnr offs had done the required work, often a ‘mates chat’ over a beer at Happy Hour would suffice - ‘OK Simpkins, so you’ve done a written or verbal Briefing haven’t you? Excellent, get the beers in’.
We could of course come up with a similar Corps-wide programme, which is what we should be doing to ensure standardisation, but is there any likelihood that we would not abuse it in a comparable manner? Less the beer obviously…
I think it works quite well in our Wing. Not only does it get signed off by the OC, but their WSO also has to look and review it. Hopefully the WSO has a knowledge of the staff involved anyway so would only sign it off if they were happy, not just reliant on the OC say so.
Has anyone else had the response email regarding VRT status for SNCO…
still to be discussed further by Defence Youth Engagement Implementation Team
but if goes forward we will get more information on the implications
If they were to introduce this revised status, they are saying it is likely that it would be optional initially, with new SNCOs joining the VRT and existing SNCOs opting in if they wish, or opting out until their next re-engagement point, promotion, etc, at which point they would be asked to accept the new status…
the overwhelming majority of the reples in the survey was positive to a move to VRT