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.
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.
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.
If we were guaranteed to have reliable, trained commanders who had effective management skills and a spine or two we could probably rely on them to sign off promotions on merit, so that such a system would provide sufficient assurance that promotions had been earned and that the new rank was justified. The OC’s recommendation is important but not every OC is as good as you.
We aren’t there yet. We probably never will be.
The “tick list” acts not only as a guide to the sort of criteria which will make a person eligible for promotion but also as a safeguard against OCs signing off a promotion for an easy life or to appease a truculent but lame staff member. That said, there does need to be a mechanism to escalate a candidate’s promotion if the have a legitimate reason for failing to tick some of the boxes. That should sit at RC level who should have the balls to reject it if that is the best course of action.
Absolutely not, at any rank.[/quote]
As the Sqn Cdr you know them better than anyone, have worked with them for several years and will continue to do so. How does someone who in all probability only knows them on nodding terms and only pen picture with maybe scant meanderings of someone who was with them on a camp 2 years ago going to make any sort of objective decision? Having a sheet of boxes ticked is a pointless admin exercise IMO. Just because you have been on camps, done various courses and done things around the Wing and maybe higher, doesn’t make you better, it only means you have had the time / been able to do these things. Getting stuck in at the squadron and making a difference on a crappy weekday night and turning out for umpteen events, is what I want of staff and IMO makes a better member of staff and someone who is an example for cadets to follow.
What can happen is the OC afraid to say no, puts them through only to allow someone else to make the decision and then explain it to the poor sod, when their OC (who knows them) has said yes and someone up the chain who doesn’t says no and make it sound plausible.
For WO fine put all the bells and whistles in place, but still the criteria I outline as to good/bad still remains.
The processes such extra boards are administratve tasks for the sake of administrative tasks, to give Wing Staff a purpose. Given how quicky the Corps has changed and keeps changing and speaking to WSO who have lost touch with the reality of squadron life, should be seconded to a sqn as sqn staff, that’d give them something to do. One of my mates who has been on Wing for 5 years, said that within 18 months, even though he’d done visits and inspections felt hopelessly out of touch, and as he said I’m supposed to be offering advice and so on and know nothing of squadron life.
Promotion to FS by OC’s recomendation.
Promotion to WO would only be to fill a valid post (WWO, Sector WO or as a Sqn CO) and would revert to FS when no longer filling the role. As suggested by yourself needs a course also needs to be complered (DI or SCC) at ATF. The only addition would be where a candidate failed to reach the level req’d the candidate, subject to gathering their own portfolio of evidence (admittedly this would very much be by exception, not routine) and his would have to be passed by Wing Co (not a Board) and ratified by RC.
This would bring the ANCO structure in line with VR(T) structure.
All that would be left outstanding would be to dispose of 9 yrs to unpaid Flt Lt. Instead apply a requirement/knowlege test as with WO (seem to recall SCC had to be passed to get unpaid Flt Lt? Sure I will be corrected if mistaken lol)
In your case perhaps this is true, but it will not always be the case and we cannot create policy based on the perceived ideal. As I hinted at before, proper management training for OCs might mitigate that somewhat but there is always the chance that promotion paperwork lands on an OC’s desk for someone they barely know.
They take into account the recommendation of the OC?
This system gives the OC and the individual some clear guidance as to what will justify promotion while at the same time bringing the decision into the hands of a group of people which will act as a moderator to protect us against rogue OCs.
[ul][li]It is right that there is a list of set criteria that should be fulfilled before you are considered for promotion.
Having a checklist is a way of demonstrating that these criteria have been met, and a reminder of the requirements if they have not been.[/li]
[li]It is also right that the criteria set are all reasonable, relevant and achievable. - Currently they are not.[/li]
[li]It is right that an OC or an individual can appeal in a case where a listed criteria has not been met if such appeal is justified - Again, this is not available at the moment.[/li/[/ul]
Finally, remember that. beyond massaging egos and slight increases in VA., there is little real benefit in most promotion (certainly with Sgt → FS and, unless WO becomes tied to a role, FS → WO too.) There should seldom be any time constraint on promotion and if it takes someone a few extra months or years over the minimum time to meet all of the criteria then it is no big deal.
I think there would be a benefit to us having a pass/fail promotion course in place for all promotions.
The intensity and location could vary depending on the level:
[ul]
[li]FS or Fg Off could work with a 1 or 2 day course run at wing or regional level - an update to SSIC/OIC skills and some higher training, including more leadership skills and scenario work.
Some stuff could be moved out of the initial ATF course and put here - perhaps make space for covering risk assessing more fully and automatically ticking that box on the matrix. Maybe deliver heartstart too.
(I can see an argument for ignoring Fg Off here due to the short timespan but I;ll include them anyway)[/li]
[li]Flt Lt is already really an ATF course (SCC) and WO should probably be similar.[/li]
[/ul]
Sure, this is yet more days out of a busy calendar (whinge, moan) but there is no rush to do these.
The SNCO rank structure was brought in to introduce some sort of progression and to recognise an individual’s service. To make it too easy (for any promotion) cheapens it and is what makes it pointless. It is very much out of sync with the RAF NCO promotion criteria and while I will be amongst the first to remind everybody that we aren’t the RAF, they may have this one right
Better this than promote them regardless and land us all with a useless person with a higher rank.
Time-served promotion to Flt Lt is very much in common with the rest of the RAF. An officer qualifies (or used to when I was in) for Flt Lt after 6 years commissioned service from Plt Off or 4 years if commissioned as a Fg Off. Doing away with time-served promotion serves no useful purpose IMO and would put us ‘out of kilter’ with the RAF & RAuxAF.
At the end of the day, even though the RAFVR(T) exists solely to work with the ACO, it is still a Reserve Air Force of the Crown and as such, has a certain (although few) number of privileges. Time-served promotion being one of them.
I get what you are saying regards other parts of RAF. I have met 1 (yes 1) reg officer who never did get Flt Lt despite serving 9 years. Not by any means an accurate poll tbh.
Am I correct in thinking Time Served Flt Lt still needs to do SCC? If it is theres the qualification. If not seems sensible if for no other reason than refresh on current policy.
Yes another week out but course could be done say after 7 yrs? up to 9 yrs plus. Then you get the auto Flt Lt.
I have noticed(on the original subject) there are very few against the Criteria Prromotion. Some disagreement about how but refreshing that the majority reconise this IS an issue that needs to be addressed.
