At the recent Central and East Regional SNCO conference the CACWO said that the corps will adopt South and East Midlands Wing promotion boards. It will be up to the SNCO to start their own promotion process off six months before their due date by informing their OC, they will then have to sit a board for FS and WO. The board members will be two senior WO’s and a WSO.
What are peoples thoughts?
Any more detail than that?
For God’s sake this is a hobby. How many of those suggesting or operating this would get through a board? When I look back over the years the people who have “got on” have largely been nodding dogs and or part of the Wing clique and or Masons and this sort of thing lends itself marvellously to maintaining this system. So I imagine those suggesting it would get through.
We seem to have a group of people within the Corps that want to make it something it’s not and seem to have forgotten we are hobbyists. We do what we do and fit it around what our real lives allow. Unlike reservists we don’t effectivelyy get anymore than expenses and we have nothing written into employment law, that protects us or allows us time off. What people are allowed is wide and varied, I get a week off because my company has a blanket policy for all adult members of bona fide youth organisations granted a week’s paid holiday for “training”. But I know more who can take a week unpaid and even more who get nothing and then there are the self-employed. Those that fall into these categories are in my experience very selective about what they do, but those we have in charge (and disappointly some of these are CFAV) have never tried to understand it.
If this is seen as a way forward, then the “postcode lottery” of development has to be removed, more courses, more often and opportunities for development countywide, rather than the piecemeal and scatter gun approach and self-serving groups we currently have. If this means those delivering have to travel so be it, if they’re not prepared to travel take them off the team.
The whole area of SNCO promotion has become farcical IMO and this takes it to another level. Just keep it as the box ticking exercise it has become and no more.
Well if you don’t want to sit another board, stay as a sergeant.
Simples.
We have an interview where the matrix is discussed to see how the candidate has met the criteria. Some don’t pass, others get promoted - the way it should be
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pEp, they were saying you have to tick all the boxes on the promotion criteria, your OC will then send it to the WWO who will say weather he/she thinks you meet all criteria, it will then be sent to the Wing Co for final approval. You will then be invited for a board which will cconsist of questions on the RAF, ATC, NATO and scenario’s.
It was also said that Officers will have do a similar thing as they are removing the two year automatic promotion to Fg Off.
[quote=“FS_747” post=21058]pEp, they were saying you have to tick all the boxes on the promotion criteria, your OC will then send it to the WWO who will say weather he/she thinks you meet all criteria, it will then be sent to the Wing Co for final approval. You will then be invited for a board which will cconsist of questions on the RAF, ATC, NATO and scenario’s.
It was also said that Officers will have do a similar thing as they are removing the two year automatic promotion to Fg Off.[/quote]
Did they tell you the anecdote of how the CACWO has sacked Sqn Cdrs? From what a friend of mine in that wing told me at RFD is that it’s basically empire building and ego driven by one of the deputy WOs who doesn’t see the need for officers. Initially it was just the wing adopting the corps process interesting how its now turned the other way around!
Promotion to Fg Off has never been automatic as there has always been a caveat regarding experience, hours & standards. However it has become more of a tick box otherwise awkward questions start being asked about why the individual hasn’t developed the skills & standards required (Of both the sqn CO & WO) - however the suggestion from the individual above was that the Fg Off boards should include a WO!
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=21055]For God’s sake this is a hobby. How many of those suggesting or operating this would get through a board? When I look back over the years the people who have “got on” have largely been nodding dogs and or part of the Wing clique and this sort of thing lends itself marvellously to maintaining this system. So I imagine those suggesting it would get through.
[/quote]
Yep - it also helps if you give both the RWO & CACWO your Wing Tie for WOs gratis - binds them into the club. However all the talk above is about assessing - not one wit has been spent considering the training and development of the individuals so the only ones who will pass are those that have been given the answers & the right ‘nudge’.
Its ironic that on one hand you have the commandant & HQAC trying to boost adult recruitment & retention but on the other hand you have others destroying all the good work to satisfy their own egos.
I’ve always been far more wary of AWOs than VRTs. In my experience far more tools in the former than the latter.
Without me trawling through any relevant bumph on Bader, perhaps someone can outline what the published procedure is (if any).
Now, it may also be useful for forum users to state what actually happens in their Wg or Region.
If there are differences, then Houston, we have a problem. This may be the perception of those on high…
I would see it as important to have a standardised process that should be used across the ACO in order to make it understandable, high quality, & not influenced by subjective aspects or a personalised opinion.
Two important elements here - from my point of view, promotion has to take into account the skills & standards elements. With regard to the “WO” on a fg off board, not such a bad idea - but no good having a brand new WO who still has to adjust to working with officers. 
Our Wing requires SNCO going for FS/WO to create and maintain a Professional Portfolio that includes an ACO focused CV and all of their certificates - which isn’t required by ACP 20 - and then sit a promotion board which is usually populated by a WSO, the WWO and one of the Sector SNCOs. I would argue that if a SNCO is denied promotion because the board isn’t satisfied with the portfolio, they could have a legitimate grievance.
Officers are not required to do the same.
My interview process for command and associated rank consisted of “Ready for a Squadron?” chat with the Wing Commander and that was it …
Seems a bit odd to have someone of a lower rank on someone’s promotion board…
Not if you consider the potential interaction between officer//SNCO in the future.
Why? If everyone is selected using the same criteria, then it would seem that this portfolio/CV is used to confirm some of the skills/experience criteria, which is very desirable in order to choose someone who is suitable, or to compare several candidates. However, everyone would have to have had equal opportunity to build up this portfolio - if not, it could be an advantage for one candidate, but detrimental to others.
Our Wing doesn’t do them as the tick box arrangement is used.
I do think that sometimes people in this organisation need to get a grip of themselves and remember what they are. Far too many egos proposing we do this and that without any real thought for what staff development really means, just so they can get into bar room bragging about what they put people through.
Staff development starts and finishes with opportunities to undertake training that mean that staff are more confident and or able to deliver things across the whole training gamut of the ACO. It’s bad enough that training ergo development opportunities are woefully inadequate, that contrived artificial hurdles are not required.
Not if you consider the potential interaction between officer//SNCO in the future.[/quote]
I don’t think its appropriate to have a WO on a board for Fg Off. It doesn’t happen in our parent service and IMHO it shouldn’t happen in the VRT not least because the WO is not a member of a Reserve Air Force.
Its a bit like having a board for Sqn Ldrs staffed by Plt Off’s!
[quote]I don’t think its appropriate to have a WO on a board for Fg Off. It doesn’t happen in our parent service and IMHO it shouldn’t happen in the VRT not least because the WO is not a member of a Reserve Air Force.
[/quote]
At Cranditz, whilst it wasn’t an over-riding factor, we used to listen very carefully if the sqn SNCOs suggested that Cadet Chaos might need additional trg, they were right 110% of the time! 
I think that with appropriate safeguards (specify experience criteria, etc), the input from a sage WO could be of value.
Now that is the best idea on this forum for months! That could curtail a few misguided careers? :evil:
Whilst input from a suitable WO might be helpful in deciding on the promotion of junior officers (for example the WO might have an insight into the way that Plt Off interacts with SNCOs that the WSOs don’t have - I’m thinking of a real world example or two), I don’t think that having a WO sitting on the board is appropriate.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21070][quote]I don’t think its appropriate to have a WO on a board for Fg Off. It doesn’t happen in our parent service and IMHO it shouldn’t happen in the VRT not least because the WO is not a member of a Reserve Air Force.
[/quote]
At Cranditz, whilst it wasn’t an over-riding factor, we used to listen very carefully if the sqn SNCOs suggested that Cadet Chaos might need additional trg, they were right 110% of the time! I think that with appropriate safeguards (specify experience criteria, etc), the input from a sage WO could be of value.
Now that is the best idea on this forum for months! That could curtail a few misguided careers? :evil:[/quote]
Which leads us to the situation the american continental army was in at the start of the War of Independance when each regiment was allowed to elect its own officers. This resulted in weak officers more afraid of upsetting their men & becoming unpopular than those able to take the decisions needed. Their are still times within our organisation that you need a ruthless CO who is prepared to make those harsh, unpopular decisions for the longer benefit [e.g. challenging the egos in it for themselves rather than the benefit of the cadets].
The biggest difference between the SNCOs at Cranwell and within the ACO is that the ones at Cranwell have had a long cultural memory of training officers and as you said it isn’t the over-riding factor.
I remember reading an article that was titled as advice to new officers. It stated:
[quote]
Your working relationship with your sergeant is critical and there are a few points you should note to get this relationship off on the right foot. First, he does not want your job - he wants the sergeant major’s. And he will be judged on how you turn out, so your success is important to him. He knows he must guide you initially but wants to get to the point at which you work together as a coherent team, with you leading the platoon or troop and taking care of personnel issues while he administers it. [/quote]
Unfortunately too many of the WOs want the Sqn Cdr Job (but not necessary the responsibility). Unless one of the criteria of promoting a FS to WO or a Sgt to FS is how they have guided & supported a new officer, I do not see how it is fair to have WO on Fg Off Boards. The vast majority of regular WOs are well respected by the officers, not something that occurs regularly in the ATC.
The reason is that if you go down the route of regularly consulting with your ATC WO, in the majority of cases they end up taking the mick (leaving you in the continental Army situation above). Only if they start making things interdependent, & SNCOs are judged on the success of the Officers they mentor will part of the barrier come down.
I suppose one solution would be have the WO boards made up of the Wing Co, a WSO & an experienced Sqn Cdr from another Sector. Not only would this mean the prospective WO would have to be able to work outside the SNCO club it would also help develop Sqn Cdrs for future WSO roles.
They may have been right but not very good at maths
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21070][quote]I don’t think its appropriate to have a WO on a board for Fg Off. It doesn’t happen in our parent service and IMHO it shouldn’t happen in the VRT not least because the WO is not a member of a Reserve Air Force.
[/quote]
At Cranditz, whilst it wasn’t an over-riding factor, we used to listen very carefully if the sqn SNCOs suggested that Cadet Chaos might need additional trg, they were right 110% of the time! I think that with appropriate safeguards (specify experience criteria, etc), the input from a sage WO could be of value.
Now that is the best idea on this forum for months! That could curtail a few misguided careers? :evil:[/quote]
Erm… SNCOs outrank officer cadets.
Any other situation where a lower rank was on a promotion board would seem odd - would you have cadet corporals on a CWO board? Sqn cdrs picking wg cdrs? CWOs selecting Sgts (ATC)?
Regardless of the rank differential, the SNCOs at DIOT had some very good insights into the cadets - they saw them at many times when the officers didn’t - possibly akin to life on a normal ACO sqn, with the SNCO or WO having babysat the plt off for a while…