Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
381

[quote=“bti” post=20164]steve679 wrote:

[quote]The Wg Cdr said the same thing to me…

the SCC don’t want to play, and the ACF with their lack of CI and straight in as SNCOs is causing its own issues.
the RAF want ATC SNCOs to the VRT, but the Army dont want the equivalent for their ACF SNCOs…i forget the reasons now but was linked to experience and training prior to uniform, ie with the lack of CI experience someone walks off the street puts on a ACF SNCO uniform is immediate equal to a ARMY SNCO…i can understand the resistance there[/quote]

These - I suspect - are indeed the competing agendas which are being “discussed” at the level of the RF&C Div 3* Steering Group. The SCC are quite happy as they are, and can’t in any event be compelled to change any aspect of their organisation (other than by the RN using their grant-in-aid as a lever!) since they are part of the MSSC and not the MOD; and - as you say - the Army don’t want their AIs to go down the Army Reserve List B (no longer the TA of course!) route, equivalent to our RAFVR(T).

I too can well understand the rationale for that. I don’t believe that the relationship between the regular Army and the ACF is as harmonious as ours (RAF/ATC) is by and large. Every time I have worked alongside regular Army training teams (who run Outreach / Insight courses as well as assisting with cadet training on annual camps) - in a non-ATC capacity I hasten to add - the relationship has been fractious, and there are few regular (soldiers) who think highly of ACF AIs (or Officers, for that matter). However, that’s just my limited experience, but I would imagine it is fairly representative.

The Army’s concern about experience, training, credibility, etc. is a valid one; and is an issue that the RAF/ATC would also have to address. Since a significant proportion of the ACF’s AIs and SNCOs(ATC) will be ex-cadets without any regular service experience, or cadet’s parents, without service experience and possibly with or without cadet service; the issue would affect us too.

As I have highlighted elsewhere, RAFVR(T) WOs & SNCOs would - like their commissioned counterparts - become automatically become members of a Reserve Air Force (at SNCO / WO rank!), with commensurate powers of command under Service Law and QRs. I hardly need to explain that (other than for the DE branches of NCA and ATC) promotion to SNCO/WO takes many years of service and a great deal of experience, both in the regular RAF and in the RAuxAF. In this context, I can seen DE RAFVR(T) SNCOs (and overnight RAFVR(T) WOs transferring with rank extant from the ATC) going down like a cup of cold sick amongst the ranks (not that that actually matters, in reality, other than it being an issue RAFVR(T) WOs/SNCOs would have to deal with on the ground).

There are other issues which the RAF/ACO would need to address:

  1. Selection …surely appointment would not simply be by the current Wing board model? RAF DE SNCO candidates for NCA and ATC have to attend OASC, so…
    [color=#ff0000]2. Attestation …as Airmen/women, newly appointed RAFVR(T) SNCOs would need to attest. This does not apply to RAFVR(T) Officers, as attestation is not required for an Officer being appointed to a commission (as they are). The Oath of Allegiance is quite a separate matter however…
    [/color]3. BTI[/quote]

I took an Allegiance to the queen for the Royal AIr Force in 1984 to the effect…

I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and Officers set over me. So Help me God.

I took a Further allegiance to the Queen for the Army in 2002 to the effect…
" I ____________ swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors in Person, Crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and of the Generals and Officers set over me."

There is and never will be an expiry date to either oath

However I do wholeheartedly agree that serious consideration is needed before letting inexperienced and extremely young individuals loose with the Title RAFVR(T) overnight as it is there are certain individuals in the ACO with very little experience of life let alone the Services, who given three stripes already believe they are god.

382

i too think this is going to be an issue - the services are used to inexperienced officers who are either incompetant or total throbbers, thats what YO’s are for, and thats why there are more senior, experienced officers and SNCO’s to both look after, and clean up after them. they are like toddlers, sometimes naughty, sometimes exasperating, but great fun and everyone is happy to see their endless enthusiasm. SNCO’s however are a very different matter, and i rather fear that the tolerance the regular RAF shows to the ACO’s SNCO (ATC) as ‘civilians in uniform’ might not be so forthcoming to ‘proper’ Reservist SNCO’s…

unintended consequences…?

383

I’m glad some on this site think the regulars actually give a flying whether SNCOs involved with cadets are ATC or VR(T). I for one am sure they don’t care one jot. They will still just be seen as cadet staff, in the same way i am referred to as a “cadet officer” by regulars. In the very short time we spend with the regs, we are too busy to cause an issue. By the way, those who will try and lord it over the regs because they are VR(T) are the same ones who already try as ATC. They just need re-educating.

384

BTi and Gunner, whilst I can see where you are coming from, I have to edge towards what JM has to say, any RAF personel I have come across have not been at all concerned with our “status” and surely VR … T still outlines our purpose “Training” whereas wont a full blown reserve be VR or am I missing something, look I am not angling to be VRT for any other reason than to be able to do my bit in the shooting world without having to corral VRT officers to please the armoury et al,

385

I agree, standards need to be considered before a move to VR(T) and I said as much in my return to the questionnaire.
However, I think that the standards should be raised regardless of any move to VR(T); so they should just get on with raising the minimum to a level somewhat comparable to our DE regular or reserve equivalents.

We already seem to promote people on the idea that it’s some sort of ‘well done’ for simply doing the job they have volunteered to do.
Promotion should be set against high baseline standards and ability to fulfil the role (and open vacancies for WO IMO); not simply for having been an ‘okay’ Sgt/FS for 4 years and ticking a few easily tickable boxes.

As it stands I feel we have too many FS and WOs who come across as though yesterday they were ‘Brown Owl’ or ‘Akela’ and today they’ve put on an RAF uniform.
If we’re going to move to the VR(T), which is an idea I support, we need to raise the bar substantially!
Many will achieve the higher requirements and subsequently carry themselves well as SNCOs. Many will not and there’s no reason those people should be promoted just to make them feel better.

386

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20178]I agree, standards need to be considered before a move to VR(T) and I said as much in my return to the questionnaire.
However, I think that the standards should be raised regardless of any move to VR(T); so they should just get on with raising the minimum to a level somewhat comparable to our DE regular or reserve equivalents.

We already seem to promote people on the idea that it’s some sort of ‘well done’ for simply doing the job they have volunteered to do.
Promotion should be set against high baseline standards and ability to fulfil the role (and open vacancies for WO IMO); not simply for having been an ‘okay’ Sgt/FS for 4 years and ticking a few easily tickable boxes.

As it stands I feel we have too many FS and WOs who come across as though yesterday they were ‘Brown Owl’ or ‘Akela’ and today they’ve put on an RAF uniform.
If we’re going to move to the VR(T), which is an idea I support, we need to raise the bar substantially!
Many will achieve the higher requirements and subsequently carry themselves well as SNCOs. Many will not and there’s no reason those people should be promoted just to make them feel better.[/quote]

In agreement that the bar needs to be lifted, there are many in the corps that happily attend and do ther own Project or thing but do not get involved in Camps, AT, DOE or anything else for that matter whilst there are those that can honestly say they will get involved at some point with most of the activities the Squadron or wing will run.

We have a Mix of WO’s and FSgts whose uniform Appearance falls far short of that which we enforce (or should be) and expect from our cadets.

You mention time promotion and Ticking a Few Simple task boxes yet many staff still believe that it is their God given right to pick up the next rank just for holding a rank for 4 years and dont even bother to ensure they are ticking these simple boxes. A question to some of these people should be would they automaticly promote the Cdt cpl who has been a cpl for 2 years and not lived up to expectation or carried out those duties expected of him or should they promote the Cddt cpl who has been in for 14 months and has been involved in all activities, helped develop others contribute to the running of a Flight Sqn and gone out of ther way to get on?

Proffessionalism is the Keyword.
IF THE CHANGE DOES COME INTO EFFECT THERE WILL BE NO MORE HIDING BEHIND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WEARING THE WORDS AIR CADET, AS THEY WILL DEFINATELY BE SEEN MORESAS RAF BY THE PUBLIC WHO WILL NOT HAVE A SCOOBY DOO WHAT THE VR(T) BIT MEANS…THAT IS OF COURSE IF SOME OF OUR NUMBER EVEN BOTHER TO ADD IT IN CONVERSATION.

387

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20178]I agree, standards need to be considered before a move to VR(T) and I said as much in my return to the questionnaire.
However, I think that the standards should be raised regardless of any move to VR(T); so they should just get on with raising the minimum to a level somewhat comparable to our DE regular or reserve equivalents.

We already seem to promote people on the idea that it’s some sort of ‘well done’ for simply doing the job they have volunteered to do.
Promotion should be set against high baseline standards and ability to fulfil the role (and open vacancies for WO IMO); not simply for having been an ‘okay’ Sgt/FS for 4 years and ticking a few easily tickable boxes.

As it stands I feel we have too many FS and WOs who come across as though yesterday they were ‘Brown Owl’ or ‘Akela’ and today they’ve put on an RAF uniform.
If we’re going to move to the VR(T), which is an idea I support, we need to raise the bar substantially!
Many will achieve the higher requirements and subsequently carry themselves well as SNCOs. Many will not and there’s no reason those people should be promoted just to make them feel better.[/quote]
I agree. There should be no time-served\tick-box promotions in the SNCO Cadre, just as there aren’t any beyond Fg Off for their commissioned counterparts (with the exception of the 9yr unpaid Flt Lt). There is no time-served promotion to Sqn Ldr or Wg Cdr rank and it’s all on merit in competition with peers (or damn well should be!).

As a professional trainer in my day job, I have also banged on for years about raising the bar for ALL staff, regardless of whether commissioned or non-commissioned. If there are moves afoot to make all adult staff VR(T), then those same staff should be made to complete a revised training regime, designed to improve professionalism and raise standards. Then we’d probably see those who are professional knobbers, fall by the wayside.

Before people start banging on about how we’re only ‘uniformed baby-sitters’ or ‘youth club leaders’, my message is simple: wake up and smell the coffee. You don the uniform complete with rank and you draw the pay; then you should be prepared to accept the responsibilities and standards that come with being a member of the Reserve Forces. Maybe if 22Gp see a raise in said standards, they might then just take CFAV’s a little more seriously and start relaxing some of the silly rules that prevent us running certain activities.

388

And when should we get all the benefits of reserve officers/airmen?

389

Our wing is already refusing to promote to FS/WO unless they can prove that they’re worth it, and do stuff off of the sqn.

Personally I’d also like to see promotions to WO dependent on a suitable billet and some sort of boarding process for non-billeted Flt Lts.

390

There is a HQ sanction promotion matrix to show what/where SNCOs need to do/be. If that process is not in your wing it should be

391

A lot of us have seen the matrix but certain personalities tend to just tick the boxes for their mates.

It has absolutely no value in some Wings.

392

That’s a wing issue. I know our wing do the matrix, an interview based on the matrix and defer of the candidate is not ready.

393

To be frank, the HQAC sanctioned ‘promotion matrix’ simply isn’t good enough!

It shouldn’t even come down to a question of whether someone gets involved off squadron. There are plenty of people who put the effort in and tick all the boxes, but who are simply unsuitable for promotion beyond Sgt.

The matrix itself isn’t a suitable way to determine ability,suitability, and competence.

“Attend a blues camp” is one tick box for FS for example… You don’t even have to be any bloody good! Just attend a blues camp, be totally mediocre for the whole week, and you’re a step closer to promotion!

394

Hence why our wing do the interview based on the matrix too

395

True, as does ours.

However, the problem lies in that those carrying out the interview seem to be basing their decision around the current standard of SNCO.

Until appointment/promotion boards start setting their standards higher it’s all moot.
I think it’s going to be tough to get people out of the habit and get them looking for a far higher calibre of SNCO for promotion.
You’ve only got to look around at some of the FS and WOs we’ve got in the Corps to see that it’s not working.

Perhaps OASC selection for SNCOs would be a good idea, as might additional courses/selection for promotion to FS and above.

396

How about an ACO version of SJAR & OJAR? Doesn’t have to be as involved or complex but something that fits the bill for VR(T) personnel.

397

our Wing uses the matrix to become eligible and that is all the matrix is used for…you can tick all the boxes but promotion is not automatic, it is the first step.

it requires OCs recommendation, WWO recommendation and then the Wg Cdrs stamp too!

i’d like to think if someone was THAT useless one of those approving filters would stop the process…either with regard to the “name” of the Sqn, the “standard of NCO” within the Wing or simply the reputation of the Wing that person will put forward.

personally i am all for the matrix, fours years automatic promotion is not in line with the spirit of DYER.
it offers those who only want to work on Squadron a “get out” for the higher ranks, those who have no interest in getting involved in Wing teams or attending camps can concentrate themselves as a "Sqn Sgt"
although fairly “simple” to tick the boxes for most staff…that in my opinion is because most staff do a lot anyway…i’d like to hope those SNCOs who dont deserve promotion are in the minority rather than majority…thus MOST staff must be doing a good job.

for me it has not been a tasking form to complete, but will typically be at Sqn 7/8 nights a month with 2-3 days of a weekend out and about on duty with the Squadron or Wing so ticking boxes has been part of the process rather than part of the challenge.
those that know me i’d like to think agree i am deserving of the promotion so yes it has been “easy” to tick the boxes, but that comes from being a “good” staff member rather than chasing the boxes.

I know of two Sgts who have been referred either by their OC or WWO as “not ready” so for some the system is working…i will predict this is a Wing issue as in difference in expected Standards on Wings rather than a fault with the system…we get differences in Cadet NCOs between neighbouring Squadrons so it would be only expected to see the same difference in Standards of Staff between Wings

398

With regard to moving to SNCOs to VRT…and with the move to OASC for VRT Officers…

is the move to VRT also an attempt to “level the playing field” between those with and those without a Commission?

as such if we are “selecting” (OASC) our Officers, should we not be applying the same criteria to our SNCOs?

  1. it will promote the equality of wearing either flavour of uniform…there has been a divide of VRT or not, but will there now be a OASC or not?
  2. it will (should) improve the overall standard of our SNCOs in the same manner OASC is doing for our Officers…
  3. it will offer the SNCOs some credibility amongst others who where the uniform* (Regulars/Reserves) having gone through some kind of minimum criteria rather than being an ex-Cadet/parent

*I will indicate with those who say will the Regulars/Reserve really care that the SNCOs have changed?
many as Juliet Mike said (at the bottom of pg 21) see Officers as “Cadet Officers” and not “real” Officers, would a gilt pin really make that much difference?
As part of the Wing shooting team i see regulars more than anyone else at our Squadron given i am seen at the armoury and MGR on a monthly basis…i dont think a change in pin would change how i am regarded…firstly in my experience i dont feel like i am treated in derogatory manner because i am a CFAV and critically i am still in uniform on the weekend doing the same “job” so why would their opinion of me change…?

399

The matrix is a useful tool and does allow individuals to get an idea of the sort of level of involvement that is expected if someone is to be considered for promotion. That said, the matrix as it stands at the moment is a rough approximation of what it really needs to be: some of the criteria on it are wrong in my opinion and we do have situations where circumstances make it very difficult to achieve some of those criteria, even for the most worthy candidate. It needs to be revised and become a hybrid: some “must haves” and other things carrying a score with a minimum expectation.

The matrix is still just a rough filter. The OC should be interviewing the candidate before recommending them (or not) and if there are areas where a candidate cannot meet some of the matrix requirements then the OC should be able to write a citation to justify a promotion and that citation should be actually taken into consideration (often it is a case of “they don’t fit the matrix so they are crap”, with no flexibility.)

I do think there should be some sort of promotion course, but who would run it? Perhaps that one should sit at Region. I do not think that OASC needs to be involved as I think it is the wrong tool for the job. But then again, I am very much against the transition to VR(T) as I believe it takes us in a wrong and dangerous direction.

I also think that a similar process should be in place for the commissioned path with regards to time-served (rather than role-based) promotion to Flt Lt. Simply having passed SC course doesn’t cut it.

Follow on question: Should WO be a role-based rank, only awarded to eligible candidates on appointment as WWO or above? When leaving that role, would they drop back to FS in the same way that officers return to substantive rank after leaving a role with an associated acting rank?

400

I’m not suggesting that it’s about being straight up useless. The problem is that whilst some people might be of great use and very active that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are deserving of promotion to FS or WO.
The current system basically hands out promotion as a ‘well done’ for doing very little.

I agree there! In fact I think the minimum time should be 5 or 6 years as each rank for a start. I’m in favour of a baseline standard but I don’t believe the matrix has got it right.

That very much depends on whether we consider promotion as a reward for just getting on with the same job that the majority of other SNCOs are doing too; or whether we consider that promotion to FS should be for the minority of staff who are top of their game.

I personally don’t feel that promotion should be given out for doing a ‘good’ job - lots of people are doing a good job; it should be given for doing an ‘excellent’ job, far better than everyone else.

Again, I agree. This is exactly why I think we need to set a higher standard and somehow ensure that it’s applied across the whole Corps. It’s going to be difficult until peoples mindset changes.

I know a few FS and WO (ATC) who, if you didn’t know better, you’d maybe guess were an SAC. You certainly wouldn’t confuse them with being an RAF NCO.
As we appoint directly to Sgt with very little preparation we can naturally expect that many Sgts (in particular the newer) will be lacking in experience, credibility, and simply won’t come across like an RAF SNCO. That’s the hand we’re currently dealt.
When we look at promoting FS and WO, especially if we all become VR(T), then I think we should be seeing people who wouldn’t seem out place amongst RAF NCOs. Those who have the knowledge, credibility, and bearing that stands them above others.

It seems to work for the Sea Cadets…