Change for the better?
https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/QM/P%20Letters/P%20Letter%2013-06.doc
Gives nice clear guidance.
My concern is it’ll be seen as a tick-box exercise and a candidates REAL suitability for seniority will be lost in “List A” / “List B” etc…
You’ll also have young NCOs racing to get all their ticks without any real regard to what theyre supposed to learn by doing camps, courses and so on.
Hmmm obviously don’t want people to read it anymore.
But if it is as PM suggests it’s largely a tick box approach it seems it is in keeping with the modern trend “never mind the quality, feel the width”.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8329]Hmmm obviously don’t want people to read it anymore.
But if it is as PM suggests it’s largely a tick box approach it seems it is in keeping with the modern trend “never mind the quality, feel the width”.[/quote]
Strange it was removed! see if I can attach it.
Must be better to have a rank awarded through merit rather than “you’ve been here for four years…Have one of these”
Adults seem keen to put a uniform on, but some do very little whilst in it.
Link it still working.
What about the ex cadet who became a CI for 6-12 months before deciding they wanted to go into uniform, but in that period they went and achieved a series of qualifications for their specialism, do these then count for their promotion, what if they also did their further development in their time as a Sgt, when they come to 8 years and looking for their WO, is it counted?
Other than that encouraging the CFAV to develop and become more useful to the corps and delivering the cadet experience, all that needs to follow is a similar system for officers 
The qualifications held, as long as they are current, will count irrepsective of when they were achieved surely???
This is where OC Sqns will have to be savvy though in as much as i think there is a difference in holding a qualification and it having use e.g. Sgt Bloggs can be an RCO but never run a range - is that any use???
But an OC Sqn should know that and that should be a consideration before recommendation for promotion…
We must have been trialing this down here for a while because I rather thought this was already in place.
It’s better than a simple “4 years? Here you go…” approach but far from perfect.
It is quite feasible to do the minimum time, tick the required boxes, and still be unsuitable for the rank - but be promoted anyway.
I’ve seen it happen.
There’s more to suitablility for promotion than doing a couple of camps and courses.
Ok, I like the sound of this generally.
But what should happen where you have a Sgt that is OC of a Sqn. Should they be put forward for Commission/fast track to WO or still work there way through the ranks as per any other SNCO ?
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=8343]We must have been trialing this down here for a while because I rather thought this was already in place.
[/quote]
i believe it has been known but nothing official to indicate the “measures” of what is deemed adequate, i have known about this for 3 years or so as talk was heard that the eligibility would raise to 6 yrs before consideration, and would evidence of “development” (ie skills/qualifications)
it would seem the 6 yrs was canned however, but i know a selection of FS 2/3 yrs ago who were told nearing their 4 yrs they may have to show evidence they have developed as an NCO…
to answer the OP’s question… a change for the better?
yes!
we promote our Cadets based on merit so why not the staff?
providing the stigma isnt linked with being a Sgt for 5, 6…10+ years then i can’t see it being a bad thing.
we (ACO) are so often told our level of instruction and professional attitude of the staff is the best offered in the Cadet Forces, and a credit given 95% of staff have “9-5” jobs this scheme will not only go to secure that but incourage it further.
i’ve never expected to sit down with my CO and be asked “what do you want to achive in the next 1, 2 and 5 years” (although it would be nice if he did) and never expected the same “development” as i recieve in my “9-5” work from my manager…for a start there just isnt time to consider that.
this matrix seems to do exactly that though, saving time for all and offering a “standard” across the ACO to aim for.
It’s definitely a good thing. Promotion to FS and especially WO shouldn’t be easy. If we, ask the corps, want the SNCOs to do the bulk of the instruction then this is an incentive. It’s always nice to know what is expected of you.
But…there is now a stark contrast between SNCO and Off promotions. SNCO is on merit and Off is mainly down to position held. This, in my mind, isn’t right. We should include quals/courses (ignoring SCC) for Off promotion too. What’s the difference between a Fg Off and a Flt Lt running a unit? Not a lot in practice. To become a Flt Lt you should need to demonstrate personal development too.
[quote=“steve679” post=8346]to answer the OP’s question… a change for the better?
yes!
we promote our Cadets based on merit so why not the staff?
providing the stigma isnt linked with being a Sgt for 5, 6…10+ years then i can’t see it being a bad thing.
we (ACO) are so often told our level of instruction and professional attitude of the staff is the best offered in the Cadet Forces, and a credit given 95% of staff have “9-5” jobs this scheme will not only go to secure that but incourage it further.
i’ve never expected to sit down with my CO and be asked “what do you want to achive in the next 1, 2 and 5 years” (although it would be nice if he did) and never expected the same “development” as i recieve in my “9-5” work from my manager…for a start there just isnt time to consider that.
this matrix seems to do exactly that though, saving time for all and offering a “standard” across the ACO to aim for.[/quote]
Im glad some sqns do this! My sqn seem to promote on time served for the cadets which often gives us NCO’s that are well just rubbish no matter how hard I tey to push for this it dont happen
Seen it now!
The problem here is provision. It’s all well and good saying you must do this/that but whoever sets the criteria must provide more than enough opportunities, not 2 - 4 a year, but double or treble that. At work there is a budget for developmental stuff and if you highlight it in your twice yearly reviews, you get it booked and get the time off or time allowance during the year for evening study. This is not the case for CFAV as we are well aware, well the CFAV are, not too sure about HQAC et al. There is no point insisting that people do this or that and ONLY having 2/3 opportunities p.a. for this or that training / developmental work when dealing with people who have to fit it around, work, family, personal holiday, home life and all that entails.
But it also comes down to personal interest. I have staff of all ranks who have no interest in gaining tickts for shooting, FMS and AT, but love the general academic air/engineering studies side of things, there doesn’t seem to be anything that alludes to that, unless it’s couched in the ‘technical qualification’. There is also nothing about sport specifically, unless that again is hidden within ‘technical qualification’. It seems the scope of activities the ACO expects its SNCOs to cover is very narrow. Probably because they are trying to fit us to a regulars model and not volunteer in a youth organisation.
Is there any point in people taking up their’s and other people’s time doing qualifications essentially for the sake of it?
As a Sqn Cdr I want a staff team to cover the whole gamut. How many RCOs, WIs, BELAs, DIs FMS monkies etc etc as per list does a squadron need? One or two at most and not necessarily just the SNCOs.
As for assisting Wing this is far too vague and again limited. Most Wing training teams and organising sub-groups are among the most notorious of cliques. Even attending the Wing camps, unless you’re part of the “in crowd” you are but a number. I’ve had staff go on these to assist and come back saying never again, as in their opinion they may as well not have been there.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8352]Seen it now!
The problem here is provision. It’s all well and good saying you must do this/that but whoever sets the criteria must provide more than enough opportunities, not 2 - 4 a year, but double or treble that. At work there is a budget for developmental stuff and if you highlight it in your twice yearly reviews, you get it booked and get the time off or time allowance during the year for evening study. This is not the case for CFAV as we are well aware, well the CFAV are, not too sure about HQAC et al. There is no point insisting that people do this or that and ONLY having 2/3 opportunities p.a. for this or that training / developmental work when dealing with people who have to fit it around, work, family, personal holiday, home life and all that entails.
[/quote]
agreed.
but with that in mind how do those staff members differ from CIs other than wearing a uniform? they have a very specific interest and skill and little, if any, enthusiasm to extend past that, which traditionally and still relvant today, is the role of a CI.
As such as a “uniformed CI” for want of a better phrase, what would promoting them offer to the Cadets or in recognition of other than time served, which forgive me if i am mistaken is a point that this scheme is trying to avoid for promotion!
no, of course not so if they have no interest in taking an RCO role or a first aid position they dont need the qualification and responsibilty and their rank reflects this. (see my point above)
somewhat with rose tinted glasses i would hope the CO of Sqns is one of the most experienced staff member, having done “a bit of everything” rather than a very specialist skilled person. with a mix of skills and/or qualifications their responsibility, knowledge and ability is reflected by their rank and office as CO which would be different to the CI who only turns up as Stores Officer.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8352]But it also comes down to personal interest. I have staff of all ranks who have no interest in gaining tickts for shooting, FMS and AT, but love the general academic air/engineering studies side of things, there doesn’t seem to be anything that alludes to that, unless it’s couched in the ‘technical qualification’. There is also nothing about sport specifically, unless that again is hidden within ‘technical qualification’. It seems the scope of activities the ACO expects its SNCOs to cover is very narrow. Probably because they are trying to fit us to a regulars model and not volunteer in a youth organisation.[/quote]What about the ground instructor courses at Cranwell?
Sports people could get coaching/refereeing quals.
[quote=“steve679” post=8354][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8352]
But it also comes down to personal interest. I have staff of all ranks who have no interest in gaining tickts for shooting, FMS and AT, but love the general academic air/engineering studies side of things, there doesn’t seem to be anything that alludes to that, unless it’s couched in the ‘technical qualification’. There is also nothing about sport specifically, unless that again is hidden within ‘technical qualification’.
[/quote]
but with that in mind how do those staff members differ from CIs other than wearing a uniform? they have a very specific interest and skill and little, if any, enthusiasm to extend past that, which traditionally and still relvant today, is the role of a CI.
As such as a “uniformed CI” for want of a better phrase, what would promoting them offer to the Cadets or in recognition of other than time served, which forgive me if i am mistaken is a point that this scheme is trying to avoid for promotion![/quote]
The point I am trying to get across is that the scheme as presented seems very stilted towards a particular mindset, whereas our uniformed staff team should present as broader aspect of the cadet experience as possible and not just the ‘exciting/fun’ side. I’m not suggesting that people don’t get involved in the whole thing, but people must be able to follow their interest and not feel they have to do something for the sake of it, which serves no purpose at all. Thus promoting those with an interest primarily in the academic side, shows that the Corps respects all staff in uniform and that the academic side is as important (for want of a word) as the “fun/exciting” side.
[quote=“MattB” post=8355][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8352]But it also comes down to personal interest. I have staff of all ranks who have no interest in gaining tickts for shooting, FMS and AT, but love the general academic air/engineering studies side of things, there doesn’t seem to be anything that alludes to that, unless it’s couched in the ‘technical qualification’. There is also nothing about sport specifically, unless that again is hidden within ‘technical qualification’. It seems the scope of activities the ACO expects its SNCOs to cover is very narrow. Probably because they are trying to fit us to a regulars model and not volunteer in a youth organisation.[/quote]What about the ground instructor courses at Cranwell?
Sports people could get coaching/refereeing quals.[/quote]
But where does it mention them specifically in the criteria? The criteria are not comprehensive nor specific enough without reference to someone who probably has no idea.
The organisation has to move away from the way it puts across the role/expected scope of the SNCO, for years and currently IMO it is too narrow. When I was a WO (back in the day) it was expected that I do 3D’s, security, stores and arms, I did a shooting ticket more for personal interest than anything, the fact I also instructed all the syllabus subjects bar propulsion and radio, was even then an anomaly. The fact that as the CO I still do get out in front of the cadets and instruct syallabus and other things is an anomaly in many’s eyes.
Difference between CIs and NCOs/Officers without a special qualifiation, if that NCOs/Officers should have a “management” role within the squadron.
As an OC I would expect my Officers and NCOs to be more active in arranging activities than a CI would be (unless the CI has a qual or special interest).
If an NCO or Officer doesnt do this then I’d personally question putting them forward for promotion (either Sgt to FS or Plt Off to Fg Off!)
i see where you are coming from now, recognition for all aspects, skills and knowledge/experience in Cadet activities,
but looking from the outside in:
when i see a Cadet FS i am prejudice towards their abilities and skills, they maybe the best Sports Cadets having represented region at three sports, but they will (should) have other relevant experience of Cadet life such as annual camps, flying, shooting, first aid, AT and FC camps etc and not just have been promoted in recognition of thier sporting achievements
if i see a FS/WO (ATC) i would have the same prejudice about their abilities, they maybe the Wing First Aid Officer, but that isnt their only skill or experience.
HQAC are looking to avoid a “one trick pony” scenario hence the need to have a breadth of experience which i think is only a good thing…
this may require some to stay at their rank because they have no interest in completing courses/qaulifications/camps etc for the sake of it that is no different to Cadet promotions.
a Cadet who turns up twice a week, 51 weeks of the year and comes with the right attitude, uniform and enthusiasm is less likely to be promoted against someone who only does 75% the attendance but gets involved on the weekends…
although i would agree the criteria could be viewed as narrow it