SNCO Promotions

We have a Sgt who was refused Flt Sgt last year because their squadron attendance was hit and miss, never did annual camps nor any weekend activities. They are now doing the bare minimum to tick the current boxes and now waving the look at me flag.

Makes me wounder why some actually go into uniform. Well I do know why, but that’s another subject. :whistle:

If they just did “the bare minimum” they could forget me recommending promotion.

YOu don’t get promoted for doing “the bare minimum” (as some people in the workplace seem to forget too!!)

I agree Mr Mason.

Although the new paper work in my mind is just a guide.

Attitude and willingness must be key factors too. Some commit less than others but when they do commit they make a difference.

Common sence must play a part in this process and uniform walts need grounding.

I will add… I also believe the same should apply to officers - uniform hangers not contributing should not automatically become Flying Officers, and indeed Flight Lieutenants.

i cant disagree with Perry.

the same prejudice i mentioned above can be made about a Fg Off and a Flt Lt i would expect a difference between the two in terms of knowledge,experience and skill.

At our squadron cadets have to gain promotions through merit, by proving themselves in their own ways, not just ticking boxes… And in my opinion, they are the best in the wing.

But I’m probably bias :stuck_out_tongue:

We’re talking about SNCO (ATC) promotions here, but that raises a fair point:

We expect our Cadet NCOs to stand out and prove themselves to gain promotions; Why shouldn’t we expect the same of our staff?

I know people who’ve ticked the boxes and been promoted but they’ve not stood out at all. In some cases they’ve been the ‘weakest candidate’ at best; but they’ve ticked the boxes and gotten it anyway.

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=8568]We’re talking about SNCO (ATC) promotions here, but that raises a fair point:

We expect our Cadet NCOs to stand out and prove themselves to gain promotions; Why shouldn’t we expect the same of our staff?

I know people who’ve ticked the boxes and been promoted but they’ve not stood out at all. In some cases they’ve been the ‘weakest candidate’ at best; but they’ve ticked the boxes and gotten it anyway.[/quote]

I wish that was the case on my sqn but cadets seem to get promoted on time served which I dont agree with.

I think there’s still a lot of that about.

When you talk about time served promotions what exactly are the criteria for this?
To me it means that at specific points throughout your time you get promoted, regardless. Is this what people mean because if it is I’ve never seen it (with the exception of PO to FO) and I’ve been doing this a while.
The biggest problem is if you look in at someone in another unit, you don’t see that person day in day out and have only a very narrow perspective of them. There are some who I grant are tools all of the time and then you have to wonder about them.
This why the SNCO promotion matrix is a bad idea as it suggests a move to an even more vacuuous system, than pure time served. Before this came out a defined person spec (not TORs) for CFAV SNCOs was required to justify the matrix, so that we know what we are looking at individuals to have, because looking around my local area, there are some ‘natural’ SNCOs (they like drill and uniform stuff) but an awful lot of SNCOs who are only SNCOs because they failed or didn’t fancy a commission. Most of these have a management skills above that required for SNCO. We will get more SNCOs from the failed to commission group over the coming years, unless HQAC tells OASC to get on board with who and what we are.
I understand chatting to mates in ACF going through Westbury is even worse as it seems they have less of a clue about CFAV Officers than OASC or HQAC.

Some of you are never happy.

If HQAC just allowed promotion based on time served you’d all* moan about it.

If HQAC put out specific criteria that listed each and every qualification that would grant promotion, you’d all* moan about it because you’d know people who don’t have an interest in that exact subject or skill.

If HQAC put out a general criteria that allows for some interpreting, and allows people to pick a suitable skill and gain quals and experience in it, then you all* still moan about it.

Of the three options, they seem to have gone for the one that benefits the volunteer best. Because it is a broad list, they can go off and find something that suits them.
[ul]
[li]-The gun bunnies can get an RCO or WI qualification and tick the box.[/li]
[li]-The racing snakes can go and get a sport qualification and tick the box.[/li]
[li]-The outdoor types can go and get an AT qualification and tick the box.[/li]
[li]-The weekend warriors can go and do the fieldcraft course to become an authorised instructor and tick the box.[/li]
[li]-The academic types can go and do a ground instructor course and tick the box[/li]
[li]-The shouty marchy types can be recommended for a DI course (or even go on another cadet force DI course maybe) and tick the box [/li]
[/ul]

The squadron commander will still have to sign the recommendation that they are of sufficient calibre and meeting the required standards in terms of Dress and Deportment etc to get the process started, so anyone who gets through who is a tool is firmly the blame of the OC, not HQAC, not wings, not the individuals (although they are to blame for being tools). The OC signs them off, so they are responsible.

As for officers having to meet criteria, I’m all for it. Extend the list to cover that they must have held an executive post on squadron, and attended an executive post training course - which wings need to start and run. That doesn’t mean that NCOs can’t do those courses, but leave them off the list of criteria for NCO promotion as they are ‘traditionally’ the remit of officers.

*By all, read the usual whinging moaning gits on here.