Have you missed that VRT selection is now the same (ish) as regular selection. Different emphasis, but at the same place, same length of time and using same selection tests etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wouldn’t that be a good thing?[/quote]
Regional Selection - Yes
Having the CFAVs go to Cranwell for a weekend - not so great. Fair enough for those who wish to be officers.[/quote]
Why is it fair enough for officers, but by your logiv ‘unfair’ for SNCOs?
It doesnt need to be exactly the same OASC filter, it could be tailored for SNCO (VRT) service, but if you dont want to be referred to as “civvied impersonating RAF personnel” then surely its resonable for SNCOs as well?[/quote]
Exactly - if SNCO’s require the “benefits” of VR(T) status - a form of reservist - then there will have to realisation that will invariably be a tightening up of selection standards. No longer would people slip under the “They’re ‘Civvy in Uniform’ so its ok if they’re gash/grossly overweight/un-military” radar.
Based on recent OASC decisions it might well be that people who could have served under ATC guidance could not under VR(T) rules.
I think this change could bring benefit to most, but standing by for tales of woe and disappointment…
Seconded.
[quote=“MattB” post=17386]Seeing as direct entrants to the RAF at Sgt go through OASC why shouldn’t direct entrants to RAFVR(T) service do the same?
Unless non-commissioned personnel would rather not go through OASC and prefer to go in at aircraftsman/aircraftswoman?[/quote]
The only Direct entry at Sgt in the RAF is that of Aircrew, there fore it is pretty reasonable to see why they have to attend and Pass Officer & Aircrew selecrion (OASC),and as Sgts are not gaining a queens Commission as Officers there is no reason to have to attend OASC.
There is Mileage in thought for a Sgt Type course however the curent RAF one is more designed to the Real Airforce and certainly the Air Power and SJAR compilation could be removed, in essence leaving leadership and public Speaking as the mainstay. In saying this however before reaching the Rank of Sgt the normalRAF airman would have had to be promoted to CPL and completed a course of similar nature, both courses with elements that canbe physicaly demanding “look how quick they Dropped the Fitness test for VRT Selection”
Personaly speaking I prefer an approach whereby you can not recieve your rank or uniform until you have actualy completed the SSIC at ATF being awarded your rank a the completion, as currently this is the only way I believe you are going to ensure that they actualy attend the course, that or their seniority in rank should not begin until the completion date, the white tabs ruling is ignored by many non SSIC Sgt who simply do nnot wear or are told by their OC not to wear the white tabs, and to weed out those who constantly avoid attending simply by booking courses and cancelling them further extending completig the course,
No it isn’t - air traffic controllers can also go in at Sgt, via OASC.
Bit of a chicken and egg argument anyway - do aircrew Sgts go to OASC because it’s the Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre, or is it the Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre because it handles potential officers and aircrew (and air traffic control SNCOs)?
Wouldn’t that be a good thing?[/quote]
Regional Selection - Yes
Having the CFAVs go to Cranwell for a weekend - not so great. Fair enough for those who wish to be officers.[/quote]
Why is it fair enough for officers, but by your logiv ‘unfair’ for SNCOs?
It doesnt need to be exactly the same OASC filter, it could be tailored for SNCO (VRT) service, but if you dont want to be referred to as “civvied impersonating RAF personnel” then surely its resonable for SNCOs as well?[/quote]
Exactly - if SNCO’s require the “benefits” of VR(T) status - a form of reservist - then there will have to realisation that will invariably be a tightening up of selection standards. No longer would people slip under the “They’re ‘Civvy in Uniform’ so its ok if they’re gash/grossly overweight/un-military” radar.
Based on recent OASC decisions it might well be that people who could have served under ATC guidance could not under VR(T) rules.
I think this change could bring benefit to most, but standing by for tales of woe and disappointment…[/quote]
I resemble that comment 
well, the overweight bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the CFAV training element should be brought into line similar to the training required for RAuxAF officers and SNCO’s.
Pre-course study followed by a 15-day continuous initial course (or whatever it is these days). It’s far better than what we have at present.
And before the wailing starts about ‘taking time out to do it’, remember that the RAuxAF manage it by fitting it in with their jobs and personal lives. Build solid foundations and the building sat above them will last longer and serve better. Build them on sand as we’re doing now and we’ll continue getting issues with retention, appropriate behaviour and all the other issues we currently experience within the Corps.
Good selection followed by decent training. We are after all, a training organization…
[places helmet on head and digs in]
Re the civvie and uniform comment, there are plenty of reservists that look gash/overweight/biffa’s etc. Plus, there are a fair few VRT’s that don’t look great in uniform, are you going to come down on those already in existence then, Noah Claypole?
What about the fat, overweight ACO SNCO versions of your ‘biffa’ example?
How would you suggest they’re dealt with?
As the roles of SNCO and Officers are becoming more blurred (for example Sgt/FS/WO running Squadrons due to lack of officers) then it makes sense that the whole uniformed volunteers should be grouped under the same status of VRT ot ATC. Technically, as NCO(ATC), I should be following the same rules and regulations as my colleagues, so we should be accountable to those same regulations, but as SNCO(ATC) I can turn round and say "it’s ok, they don’t apply to me…"
If I was running a Squadron as NCO(ATC) I should expect to be held as accountable as the Officer in charge of the next Squadron to me, if something goes wrong.
On the other hand, I fail to see what, if any benefits I would gain from switching from (ATC) to VRT, unless it would open up doors currently not available for training opportunities.
Prospective SGT doing OASC? I’m all for that, as it would certainly weed out those that are just doing it for the uniform and inflated egos. Believe me, I’ve come across more than a few in my time, and it still amazes me how some of them got through Wing boards etc. I think the course would have to be reworked slightly, to make it relevant to what we do, but it would definately be a step in the right direction for the organization.
[quote=“Gunner” post=17396]I think the CFAV training element should be brought into line similar to the training required for RAuxAF officers and SNCO’s.
Pre-course study followed by a 15-day continuous initial course (or whatever it is these days). It’s far better than what we have at present.
And before the wailing starts about ‘taking time out to do it’, remember that the RAuxAF manage it by fitting it in with their jobs and personal lives. Build solid foundations and the building sat above them will last longer and serve better. Build them on sand as we’re doing now and we’ll continue getting issues with retention, appropriate behaviour and all the other issues we currently experience within the Corps.
Good selection followed by decent training. We are after all, a training organization…
[places helmet on head and digs in][/quote]
Employers are, by law, required to give time to proper reservists, and get finding from the government while their employees are deployed. Don’t think theHQAC budget will stretch to that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not for training they aren’t.
Only deployment they are required to give someone there job back when they return.
Ok, I stand corrected. I thought there was a requirement to release for annual camp etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote=“mtbcol” post=17399]
Prospective SGT doing OASC? I’m all for that, as it would certainly weed out those that are just doing it for the uniform and inflated egos. Believe me, I’ve come across more than a few in my time, and it still amazes me how some of them got through Wing boards etc. I think the course would have to be reworked slightly, to make it relevant to what we do, but it would definately be a step in the right direction for the organization.[/quote]
seconded, particularly my bold.
i see far too many what i call “parent CIs”* who have no clue about how to organisation works outside of there 20 Cadet strong Squadron. Going into uniform in the vein hope they will get “respected” and all of sudden become a forceful, confident SNCO much like the FS (ATC) already in place.
when of course this doesnt happen. what instead we have is a leader of the cubs in a RAF/ATC uniform, who is over shadowed in presence, ability and general “SNCO-ness” but a CSgt!
*a “parent CI” being a CI who is in no way useful as a CI, almost certainly not able to independantly get on with a task, but instead turns up ONLY becuase their little Jonny/Jane is at Squadron, and is often tolerated as “second pair of hands to help out a bit” and are better suited to the “soft” environment of the Scouts, rather than the “militarian environment” that is the ATC
That’s exactly my point. People are saying that everyone should “look the part”, the ACO is an open organisation in terms of size, disability, gender, race, sexuality etc. you can’t just have a go at people because of their weight. What I mean by my comment is that, why are you picking at how people look? In the ACO if they can do their role/position and teach and train cadets effectively then, what does it matter? We have a large range of people with a variety of skills, that is what makes the staffing teams work together so well. If everyone was the same the world would be pretty boring!
If we continue to ignore the image of the organization and continue to uniform those who don’t ‘look the part’ then two things will happen:
-
The regular and reserve forces will continue to look down on CFAV’s and regard us all as oxygen thieves.
-
A morbidly obese CFAV can hardly be viewed as an acceptable role model to cadets.
If people want the uniform, rank, status, pay and opportunities, then look and act the part. That starts with a robust selection process underpinned by effective training. If people don’t want to be a round peg in a round hole or don’t like the thought of having to go to Cranwell, then I hear the scouts are recruiting.
[erects overhead cover]
There us a lot more to being a role model than looks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe so but it plays a large part.
I would have said manner, attitude and smartness would be just as important. For those who know me, and know I’m not small by any means, I’m not making excuses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately some of the regular and reserve forces do look down on some CFAV’s and that is usually down to a bad experience with them. However, the regulars and reservists that I have seen on camps and spoken to either like what we do within the corps or they have no idea what we actually do and end up quite surprised when they find out.
Why would an over weight person be deemed as a bad role model to cadets, based purely on their weight? If the staff member works well with cadets, runs activities and their enthusiasm rubs off on the cadets, then what does their weight matter. Cadets will look up to staff members and especially in Squadron, the cadets attitude and manner is affected by the staff. Good staff have positive effects, cadets are happy, Squadron runs smoothly, cadets and staff get full range of the Corps’ activities.