How exactly do you do that? Certainly set sights higher but set them too high and make it too special and you get too few to operate. This is bad enough on some squadrons / areas already, without exacerbating it.
Do you specify application criteria, ie educational, qualifications, experience?
Do you base selection against these or arbitrary factors and then how do you ensure a level playing field?
Have too many fail and many won’t bother, including the ‘ideal’ (the sort I expect some on here have pictured in their minds) as being in the ATC is, when all said and done, a spare time activity and is being allowed to wear a uniform in a youth organisation special enough to make people feel it’s worth the effort and potentially face rejection? For regular service yes, as there is a financial and career advancement inducements / rewards and ability to do things without having to juggle real job, family etc. I think that the latter is one of the factors, aside from the big one of deployment, why there has been such a shortall in the targets for Armed Forces reserve.
If there was a move to set specific criteria or raise the bar, then something would need to be done to make the post appointment experience match the need for such criteria being set. If you applied for a job and the pers spec set specific crtiteria for education and or experience/skills and when you started you were doing things that didn’t use your qual/experienc/skill or match the selection requirements, would you be happy or just do it for the money until something else came along.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=21194]
The emphasis HAS to shift to the quality of the individual. The matrix was a good start but doesn’t solve the issue.
For example one of the ticks is “attend a blue camp”. Someone might attend 8 blue camps in those 4 years and be basically useless on all of them but suddenly they’ve got the important tick in the box for FS.
The matrix in itself doesn’t guarantee anything, and until boarding officers set their sights higher for quality individuals it’s all just a pointless exercise.[/quote]
i am inclined to agree and disagree.
some of the boxes are far too easy, such as attending a camp.
An “attendance” criteria should be a minimum requirement, not eligibility for promotion
on the flip side, (and where i disagree) when looking at the same criteria box for promotion to WO and it requires some work. ok so the requirement to attend has doubled, but further down the matrix “assist the Wing in organising a Camp” becomes a requirement.
Now in my last camp i ticked this by organising the transport arrangement and was IC Sports, but should that not be an expectation for a Sgt to be capable of?
if a Sgt assists (2IC) a FS coordinates (IC) and a WO manages (multiple ICs responsibility/runs a “medium sized” event) does that not offer a degree of development and competence behind each rank?
i agree some aspects are too easy simply by attendance…imo this should be a minimum,
while others although along the right lines with greater experience or competence to be proven it isnt brought in early enough to offer the correct “continual personal development” that the rank structure implies.
[quote=“SVS” post=21210]Seriously though I still don’t see why commissioned members of the VR(T) can’t do everything ATC snecs do now…[/quote]They COULD, in the same way that commissioned officers in the RAF COULD do everything that NCOs do.
[quote=“steve679” post=21212]some of the boxes are far too easy, such as attending a camp.
An “attendance” criteria should be a minimum requirement, not eligibility for promotion … Now in my last camp i ticked this by organising the transport arrangement and was IC Sports, but should that not be an expectation for a Sgt to be capable of?
[/quote]
Attending camps in the modern environment with limits on staff attending, is not as easy as it was when I started out with enough uniformed staff to cover all the jobs. I regularly put forward 4 staff to go to camp and normally 2 are selected and not always uniformed. As such, compared to my first camps as a CI back in the late 80s, no staff are free from being given a job, so running and organising things can be what CIs do, so that box could be ticked before anyone gets into uniform. I know some shudder at the thought of CIs organising things and some CIs who say that’s a uniformed job, but if they’ve got the skills/knowledge/experience, isn’t that what should happen, not give it to someone just because they happen to wear a uniform but have no idea. On one camp a CI, an experienced office mananger and sqn adj, was given the job of adj and on another a school PE teacher was made I/C sports. These could have been given to uniformed staff just because they are in uniform and I’ve seen more cases where this happens and the uniformed bod is completely out of their comfort zone and someone else does it anyway.
Actually, no; I do not believe that is within the intention of the matrix and it is certainly not how I apply the wording. The matrix states “Attended minimum of 1 Blue RAF Camp within 4 year period” - that would be the 4 years prior to the application and the individual (except in unusual circumstances) will have therefore been a Sgt at those camps. This is right in my opinion as experience on a camp in uniform is subtly but significantly different from the same camp as a CI, irrespective of the jobs allocated.
Nice selective editing.
The point I was proposing was it would simplify the running of the ACO and widen the talent pool for potential command of squadrons.
Not really selective editing, just picking out the salient point.
We have two ‘career’ tracks for basically the same reason as the RAF does, because the two aren’t the same job.
Also, theoretically the SNCO cadre includes a number of people who are capable SNCOs but who are not suitable to become officers. Therefore only having one stream would reduce the number of uniformed staff (or reduce the average quality of commissioned officers).
And it wouldn’t really increase the pool of potential commissioned officers - it’s fair to say that the people who want to and are capable of running units are commissioned anyway - yes there are a few WOs, but generally they are either running the unit on a temporary basis or planning to commission.
Just making a Sgt (ATC) a Plt Off RAFVR(T) without any other change doesn’t make them any more suitable for command.
Don’t forget that there is another important distinction which is under threat in that our officers are in the RAF and our SNCOs are not. That has also been a factor in some decisions as to which way to proceed upon going into uniform. If we all end up one way or the other there is even less to choose between the paths and an all-officer uniformed CFAV cadre starts to make a little more sense.
The DI course is SNCO/WO only, though I’ve never heard a good justification why this must be the case so that could easily be changed if need be.
Actually, no; I do not believe that is within the intention of the matrix and it is certainly not how I apply the wording. The matrix states “Attended minimum of 1 Blue RAF Camp within 4 year period” - that would be the 4 years prior to the application and the individual (except in unusual circumstances) will have therefore been a Sgt at those camps. This is right in my opinion as experience on a camp in uniform is subtly but significantly different from the same camp as a CI, irrespective of the jobs allocated.[/quote]
While the experience might be different, the fact that the actual experience / ability prior to application be that as a CI or outside the Corps isn’t taken into account is a flaw. By that token most job applications would be pretty short and no need for the roles/duties in previous jobs, or have a CV or supporting/personal statement. You can get a job often paying more and or a more senior role based on what you have done before, not necessariy in that company. You don’t get interviewed and before they give you the job, they say we want to see you do all the things you’ve done before. So why the ATC seems to demand doing things over and over again, when there will be some evidence that you have done it, is just churlish and pedantic … oh wait a minute. Respecting what someone may have done or do as CI, might go a long way to encourage people going into uniform roles.
All I’m getting here is we fear change and it’s always been that way, or it’s what the RAF do.
Sometimes change can be for the better.
Precisely. The organisation should evolve.
Actually, no; I do not believe that is within the intention of the matrix and it is certainly not how I apply the wording. The matrix states “Attended minimum of 1 Blue RAF Camp within 4 year period” - that would be the 4 years prior to the application and the individual (except in unusual circumstances) will have therefore been a Sgt at those camps. This is right in my opinion as experience on a camp in uniform is subtly but significantly different from the same camp as a CI, irrespective of the jobs allocated.[/quote]
While the experience might be different, the fact that the actual experience / ability prior to application be that as a CI or outside the Corps isn’t taken into account is a flaw. By that token most job applications would be pretty short and no need for the roles/duties in previous jobs, or have a CV or supporting/personal statement. You can get a job often paying more and or a more senior role based on what you have done before, not necessariy in that company. You don’t get interviewed and before they give you the job, they say we want to see you do all the things you’ve done before. So why the ATC seems to demand doing things over and over again, when there will be some evidence that you have done it, is just churlish and pedantic … oh wait a minute. Respecting what someone may have done or do as CI, might go a long way to encourage people going into uniform roles.[/quote]To be fair, I think that both apply and can be used with a bit of common sense.
It’s certainly not reasonable to completely ignore past service as a CI (or as an SNCO in the case of officers) when looking into promotion, whilst at the same time accepting that the role of a CI in a given situation is not necessarily the same as a Sgt, etc.
So if someone has done, say, four annual camps as a CI, goes for SNCO and then doesn’t manage to get on a camp at all for the first four years then perhaps that could be considered in lieu of having attended a camp as an SNCO, if other parts of the portfolio are up to scratch.
Have attended one camp ten years ago as a CI? Maybe not so much.
The problem with change in the ATC is that it’s normally IMO done for the sake of it, there is no rational rhyme or reason, just some shiny changing something because we’ve had something or done something the same way for a while or someone new comes in and wants to make their mark or is it cause havoc. All that this does is create confusion at the coalface because there is no rationale for change, the old adage if it ain’t broke … comes to mind. Maybe it’s Civil Service / Publc Sector mindset / way of working.
The last 2 managers I’ve had at work have said if you are going to change something that is going to our clients then it must “add value” and we must show and explain to them first and then send the idea to our main clients for their OK, if they can’t see the benefit, then it doesn’t happen. It’s a pain in the neck, but it does stop you and make you consider what and why you are proposing to change.
We get forms and processes changed all the time in the Corps (hardly ever with any benefit) and you only become aware after the fact.
I can’t be the only one that thinks the OASC process for VR(T) is to provide a rationale to keep people in a job at OASC and if the SNCO go VR(T), there could be a similar process. I doubt if we’d had the cuts in the RAF that OASC would have the capacity for VR(T), so a change in the ATC for the sake of it … who knows, but it’s always looked that way.
You are such a doom and gloom merchant, I bet you are laugh-a-minute on a night out! Why are people, especially those already commissioned, so scared of OASC? Without exception, everyone I have spoken to has said that they thought the process was worthwhile (clearly there will be those who didn’t but I’ve not met them). I was involved in some of the early discussions with the project officer running the VR(T) OASC concept and the aim was to raise the standard of VR(T) officers, it just so happened that OASC had the capacity to do it; a proper selection process was long overdue. Who can say, certainly not us, whether some arrangements would have been put in place for VR(T) anyway, such as weekends only selection. As far as I know, the ACF have been sending their officers to Westbury for some time, so they obviously realised the benefits of a properly structured and credible officer selection process some time ago (Talon can you confirm?)
As for VR(T) OASC retaining jobs, that is rubbish. Whether the RAF has 90,000 or 30,000 people, if there is a need to select the officer corps, a selection process has to be maintained. Sure, there will be less Regulars going through, but the capability to select needs to be maintained and the staff who conduct the selection need to maintain their skills. The only time you could get rid of OASC in toto would be if you went to a joint officer selection process. It is exactly the same with training schools, you simply cannot cut a school’s staff by 2/3 if the Service it is feeding is now 2/3 the size, the training process itself takes a finite number of people regardless of the potential class size.
Edit: It’s all called making best use of irreducible spare capacity
Strikes me there are positives on both sides. I would suggest promotion to Flt Sgt / Fg Off be a pure tick box exercise. (EG Have attended a residential Cadet activity, passed some specialist training (eg RCO, H&S Assessor, Radio Trainer etc(not all, just one)) and have put in the hours.
Promotion to AWO SHOULD be more robust. Personally I would only have Sector and Wing appointments as WO’s with the remaining NCO cadre as Sgt / Flt Sgt. The only exception would be those commanding a Sqn given ACTING WO. This would be Boarded and subject to qualifications (H&S, DI, Management etc) as a requirement to APPLY.
As for Acting Flt Lt only for CO’s WHO MEET THE CRITERIA. (Sqn Management Course, H&S Management etc) which QUALIFIES them as fit to manage the squadron. Be CO as a Fg Off but understand you need to work towards the above.
If rank and status is your thing then do the work, if you are quite happy as you are carry on.
No need to back date. Set the policy, brief the policy, go live with the policy and adhere to and police the policy
Rumour has it that going foward promotion to WO(ATC) will only take place if you have a role to take on I.e Sqn WO or Sector/Wing Role. I would fully support a board for WO(ATC) as you would want the right people doing these roles
I am a WO in Durham and Northumberland and for my promotion to WO I had to sit a promotion board with the wing co, a sector commander and wing WO.I also had to fill in an application form with a list of criteria that I had to meet to get the interview.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
If only such a policy had been adopted 12 years ago we’d be in a better position now.
If only such a policy had been adopted 12 years ago we’d be in a better position now.[/quote]
That’s purely speculative and subjective.
I do however think there should be a pass/fail WO course at the ATF and this should have been in place shortly after the SNCO structure was implimented. This would do away with all the tick sheet nonsense.
Promotion to FS should purely be OC’s recommendation, without any other criteria.
Agree with 90% of that. I do agree of with Grading Course BUT with Wg Cdr allowed to appoint following course SUBJECT to oral/written evidence from Senior Staff. Remember not everyone performs well in a classroom environment.
I would add this should be applied to Flt Lt as well.
That said any step forward in the direction outlined would be a massive step forward.