As a six-minute-mile, 20 BMI racing snake my view is as follows:
The question of whether we should allow the larger ladies and gentlemen to be uniformed staff is rather moot, considering how few staff we have. To be honest, in my opinion any significant change to the selection procedures will be rather pointless unless we can recruit more decent staff!
The ‘fatties’ issue applies many times more - what percentage of ATC staff could pass the RAFFT or come close enough to pass with a little encouragment? 20%? 30%?
[quote=“MattB” post=17394]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)?[/quote]
true but as stupid as it seems and it is very stupid the AFCO clases Air Traffic SNCO as aircrew it might be a work around to get them on OASC
Is this a new thing then? I didn’t, and neither have colleagues of mine, recently appointed to the SNCO cadre. (And yes, they’re wearing white tabs).
I did go for aptitude tests when I applied to be SNCO aircrew many years ago, but was sent to Biggin Hill. Maybe that should read Many, many years ago!
Is this a new thing then? I didn’t, and neither have colleagues of mine, recently appointed to the SNCO cadre. (And yes, they’re wearing white tabs).
I did go for aptitude tests when I applied to be SNCO aircrew many years ago, but was sent to Biggin Hill. Maybe that should read Many, many years ago![/quote]
He is, of course, referring to Sgt Air Traffic Controllers in the RAF and not Sgt(ATC) CFAV
Is this a new thing then? I didn’t, and neither have colleagues of mine, recently appointed to the SNCO cadre. (And yes, they’re wearing white tabs).
I did go for aptitude tests when I applied to be SNCO aircrew many years ago, but was sent to Biggin Hill. Maybe that should read Many, many years ago![/quote]
Back on topic, what benefits would you expect if the SNCO cadre were to go VR(T)? As I mentioned earlier, I can’t really envision anything that would make a difference to what I do at Squadron or Wing level…
Proper and formal entitlement to wear the uniform of a SNCO of a reserve Air Force, together with all the privileges that brings. One may also consider that one of the benefits is the assumption of responsibility knowing that one is accountable for one’s own and others actions.
That is an element of leadership and membership of the VRT may allow one to rise to the challenge and develop oneself or for those that decide they can’t hack it or refuse to serve under service law, hand in their MOD90.
Either way, I feel that bringing the SNCO cadre into the VRT fold, would be a step in the right direction for the Corps.
My company offer 2 weeks unpaid special leave for reserve Training…this is cos theyknow your gonna get paid by MOD during this period…so wont pay you… but they do not offer thisluxury to “Cadet Staff” achange of tittlewouldopenthe doors
[quote=“Gunner” post=17425]In a word. Entitlement.
Proper and formal entitlement to wear the uniform of a SNCO of a reserve Air Force, together with all the privileges that brings. One may also consider that one of the benefits is the assumption of responsibility knowing that one is accountable for one’s own and others actions.
That is an element of leadership and membership of the VRT may allow one to rise to the challenge and develop oneself or for those that decide they can’t hack it or refuse to serve under service law, hand in their MOD90.
Either way, I feel that bringing the SNCO cadre into the VRT fold, would be a step in the right direction for the Corps.[/quote]
Definatly what that fellerin the green with Mudguards said…
We already have entitlement, as evidenced by the fact that we are entitled to wear the uniform. The cadets are too.
We are accountable for our actions because of law.
I think there are many more advantages to detaching our officer cadre from the RAF and introducing a cadet forces commission, equivalent through all arms, but that will cause far too many teddies to go sailing out of prams…
Nah, wrong word. It’s all about command/control. Dawn - and Bab’s before her - both saw the increasing number of SNCO’s running squadrons. We can’t recruit the officers - but we can SNCOs. SNCOs who, act with their (Commandant Air Cadets) authority, but without directly falling in line with the command/control of the military bits of the ACO. Bring the SNCO cadre into the VR(T) is a shortcut to getting them in the club should the doo-doo fall upon the round spiny thing.
I’d love to think it’s all lovey dovey, making the SNCOs feel part of the RAF, and making everything harmonious - but I really don’t think that’s the case. It’s about command/control.
And it’s a shortcut. It’s not going to address the issue of recruiting more of the right calibre people to do the OCs job… it will suddenly just be more acceptable and palatable to have SNCOs running Sqns (not too dissimilar to the ACF model!).
I am in favour of the Cadet Forces Commission spanning all services… but I wouldn’t say there are many more advantages.
Is this a new thing then? I didn’t, and neither have colleagues of mine, recently appointed to the SNCO cadre. (And yes, they’re wearing white tabs).
I did go for aptitude tests when I applied to be SNCO aircrew many years ago, but was sent to Biggin Hill. Maybe that should read Many, many years ago![/quote]
He is, of course, referring to Sgt Air Traffic Controllers in the RAF and not Sgt(ATC) CFAV[/quote]
while i can certainly see the benefit of standardising selection of SNCO(ATC) rather than having 40-odd versions of ‘what makes a good SNCO…’, and i absolutely see the morale/espirit d’corps logic of having all the uniformed members of staff as members of one organisation rather than two, i don’t see what the benefit of that organisation being the VR(T) is…
i’m thoroughly unconvinced by the discipline/accountability argument - Officers have been accountable to service law since the inception of the ATC, yet how many are disciplined under service law when an opportunity/requirement raises its ugly mug above the parapet? not many - its the normal workplace bollocking that anyone in the ACO can get, or if its serious its an immediate discharge and off to the civil justice system we go. so why bother?
it doesn’t even make any sense in terms of management - people either will undertake the role you ask them to in the place you ask them to, or they jack it in, walk away, and discover things like ‘a social life’, or ‘not reading 50 obvious, irrelevant or wrong emails every night from someone who is under the mistaken understanding that he pays you to do a job…’. Officers currently, as members of the VR(T) decline kind invitations to take over Sqn’s 50 miles away, and if the WSO’s get snotty they bin it, so why would making SNCO’s also members of the VR(T) suddenly change that?
This is nearer the mark, especially as there are more people taking the SNCO route and in many places running sqns.
If SNCOs were to become VR(T), I can’t see the benefits to the individual (not sure what the benefits I have are) but as BF lays out, the benefits to the SLT are clearer … proper discip routes (if required) and accountability to the CoC.
What our lords/ladies and masters/mistresses need to ascertain why people don’t seem to want to go down the Officer route and then why taking command of a squadron isn’t a desireable step? The role of Sqn Cdr has got to be made more appealing, to make it so that Officers think yep I want to do it. The last few new Sqn Cdrs locally have been effectively forced into the role, several have done it for about a year and found a reason/excuse to go NEP to get out of it. In one instance the OC stepped down and remained as a Sqn Officer.
If we went down the CFAV commission, it wouldn’t be loaded in our favour.
I wonder what happens is a few years down the line we have CIs running squadrons, what they would dream up to have greater control over CIs … CI VR(T)?
This is nearer the mark, especially as there are more people taking the SNCO route and in many places running sqns.
If SNCOs were to become VR(T), I can’t see the benefits to the individual (not sure what the benefits I have are) but as BF lays out, the benefits to the SLT are clearer … proper discip routes (if required) and accountability to the CoC.
What our lords/ladies and masters/mistresses need to ascertain why people don’t seem to want to go down the Officer route and then why taking command of a squadron isn’t a desireable step? The role of Sqn Cdr has got to be made more appealing, to make it so that Officers think yep I want to do it. The last few new Sqn Cdrs locally have been effectively forced into the role, several have done it for about a year and found a reason/excuse to go NEP to get out of it. In one instance the OC stepped down and remained as a Sqn Officer.
If we went down the CFAV commission, it wouldn’t be loaded in our favour.
I wonder what happens is a few years down the line we have CIs running squadrons, what they would dream up to have greater control over CIs … CI VR(T)?[/quote]
Well Iknow of a Squaron in South Wales that was up until a mmonth or so ago that was actualy being run by a CI, with a Flt Lt and FSgt as staff…
Hopefully add some additional pride and recognition.
ACO and staff need to make their minds up to what we really are. Are we glorified youth club, if so then de-uniform staff and remove RAF involvement and become more like Air Scouts.
Or, move all to VR(T) look and act the part and become a true Blue Footprint. That way we may gain greater respect from some of our peers, rather than thinking we are a joke whilst running around the Crowns uniform.
