The mindset exhibited in the majority of posts is one of effectively penalising people who aren’t as able to do things as others, not because they aren’t able but because there are all the things that go on outside the Air Cadet bubble, that directly influence/affect what they are able to. This doesn’t mean they aren’t experienced or knowlegable enough to be promoted, just time poor. Many ATC squadrons like to push the notion of family, which is amusing when real family is expected to be overlooked. This doesn’t make good model to encourage people to stay or even join.
The problem the model suggested by several on here brings, is rewarding people with promotion who are doing much and delivering little, people who are self serving, doing things for the sake of it and making a lot of noise while doing it. These will include the ones bleating on about using all of their PTD by the end of July or August. What is suggested is basing promotion on quantity over quality and by quality I include easily accessible by many. There is a lot of things that go on, which are on a take it or leave it basis and childish foot stamping if no one or not many take it up.
Then maybe the entire question posed by GHE2 is one we’ve discussed before? That the Corps is actually providing [I]too many[/I] opportunities for cadets, all at the same time and all of which put a strain on time, family commitments and other resources?
We’ve all moaned at some point about organising an activity (normally in competition with Wg\Rgn\Corps event dates) and having only a slack handful of kids turn up? Maybe the Corps needs to streamline what it does and help take the pressure off the individuals that staff it. Maybe that way staff can devote time to self-development and in turn, we’re able to raise the bar in relation to standards of SNCO\Officer that are coming through the system.
Just thoughts off the top of my head before I head on out of the door to go to work.
There is definitely something in that, though if we relied more heavily on the core activities of flying and shooting …
It can only be seen as penalising people if promotion is considered to be something that everyone should get.
People sign up to be a Sgt. Promotion beyond that should be earned and given to those who achieve.
Certainly there will be those who might have the potential but if they are unable to fulfil it then how is it of use?
“We’ve promoted him to FS because he’s got the knowledge and potential to be a cracking instructor!”
“Does he do much instructing?”
“No, he’s got family commitments so can only attend 3 parades per month…”.
But to be honest, I’m not talking about promoting the people who get out and do lots of activities just because they have the time to pitch up. I’m talking about exactly the opposite - Promoting the people who are best at the job.
Someone might turn out every weekend and provide valuable assistance, that’s all well and good, but if they are not suitably skilled/mature/competent/&c to be a FS or WO then they should stay at their current rank without it being seen as a penalty.
I know some SNCOs who turn out regularly but have zero credibility as FS and WO.
Conversely, not being free to attend every training weekend, or to attend 5 personal development courses per year shouldn’t necessarily preclude the right person from being promoted. Though there does have to be a baseline standard somewhere.
Promotion and “well done for giving so much to the Corps” should not necessarily be the same thing.
Unfortunately, until those WOs who joined before the introduction of other SNCO ranks leave us the system will remain broken. This will take 15+ years to fix IMO, but only if we get it right NOW.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=21162]The problem the model suggested by several on here brings, is rewarding people with promotion who are doing much and delivering little, people who are self serving, doing things for the sake of it and making a lot of noise while doing it. These will include the ones bleating on about using all of their PTD by the end of July or August. What is suggested is basing promotion on quantity over quality and by quality I include easily accessible by many. There is a lot of things that go on, which are on a take it or leave it basis and childish foot stamping if no one or not many take it up.[/quote]Only if you just have a big tick-list and use that as the sole criteria.
What’s really needed here of course is some sort of face-to-face, in depth chat between the candidate and the authorising officer. If only someone could come up with a format…
Yes, the ‘old style’ WO will continue to be a mixed bag with some very credible WOs and some not so. But absolutely, we should be putting it right now. If we just continue to promote mediocre SNCOs we’re only compounding the problem.
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.
You should just bin off these “sncos” and go fully commissioned VR(T) and make this all go away. They provide no exra value and complicate the system.
Though the ones I saw cutting about cranwell recently did look smart.
As always, a thoroughly well thought out and sensible reply from SVS. :ohmy:
Thank you. They did look smart.
In all seriousness, why the need to run 2 systems? Commission everyone and it’s a level playing field.
I get the impression that SVS has never been on a squadron, camp or indeed anywhere near the military :S
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote=“SVS” post=21201]Thank you. They did look smart.
In all seriousness, why the need to run 2 systems? Commission everyone and it’s a level playing field.[/quote]
We don’t need to run two systems if they bring the SNCO’s into the VR(T), only they need to get a move on in doing so.
Happy days when both are in the fold and I reckon to add realism, we should have some F252’s flying around. That might focus the minds of some of the more sh*te members of staff!
[quote=“Gunner” post=21205][quote=“SVS” post=21201]Thank you. They did look smart.
In all seriousness, why the need to run 2 systems? Commission everyone and it’s a level playing field.[/quote]
We don’t need to run two systems if they bring the SNCO’s into the VR(T), only they need to get a move on in doing so.
Happy days when both are in the fold and I reckon to add realism, we should have some F252’s flying around. That might focus the minds of some of the more sh*te members of staff![/quote]
Hmm…having a quick look through JSP 830 Chap 7, Sections 15, 18 and 19 would appear to be the ones that would be most likely to be used if we get 252s (although are officers entitled to used Sec 22 already?) - getting a bit off topic I know - perhaps they can use it as a question on the board! 
[quote=“Gunner” post=21205][quote=“SVS” post=21201]Thank you. They did look smart.
In all seriousness, why the need to run 2 systems? Commission everyone and it’s a level playing field.[/quote]
We don’t need to run two systems if they bring the SNCO’s into the VR(T), only they need to get a move on in doing [/quote]
Another option I suppose. 2 tier system is goosed IMO.
Seriously though I still don’t see why commissioned members of the VR(T) can’t do everything ATC snecs do now. I’ve seen plenty of officers who want to to drill, dress and deportment. It also widens the pool you’re fishing from for a Sqn commanders.
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.