If you have been following the thread on the VR(T) TCoS, you will have picked up the discussions regarding a two-tier commission structure. I’d like to take that a bit further and seek peoples’ thoughts on the overall number, size and structure of squadrons. I don’t think this has been discussed on here or on the older site.
We often hear how understaffed the Corps is, how we have difficulty offering the range of activities that we could/should and how funding is getting ever tighter for building maintenance and such like. My thoughts are that the time has come to consider rebrigading our existing squadrons to form ‘Super Squadrons’ which pool existing staff and skill sets more efficiently. In my particular Wg there are several examples of 3 to 4 squadrons within a 5 mile radius, most of which suffer from staffing shortages! If you look at the Corps lay down map, thee are many similar examples. I recall a comment from someone fairly senior in our organisation along the lines that ‘as long as there is one cadet and one member of staff, we’ll keep a Sqn going’. But realistically, what can that attitude offer our people? I’m not advocating going down the rote that the ACF follow with a Detachment run by an SNCO, or that we should simply rename our Sectors into Super Sqns.
Following on from the TCoS discussion and the two-tier commissions etc, I would suggest that provided their standards were acceptable etc, the OC and 2 ic of a Super Sqn should be Queen’s Commission, other uniformed staff could be Commandant’s Commission or SNCOs as appropriate…
I have heard the argument that cadets wouldn’t travel 5 miles or more to such a Sqn set up and perhaps 40 years ago that would have been true, but how many of our cadets make their own way to the Sqn now? Most I suggest, are delivered by parents and would continue to be.
Off the top of my head and using all my fingers and thumbs that just short of 11% (10.8%) of my Wings Sqns are commanded by an SNCO at the current time.
Off the top of my head and using all my fingers and thumbs that just short of 11% (10.8%) of my Wings Sqns are commanded by an SNCO at the current time.[/quote]
Based on the civcom situation in that other thread, someone asked the Comdt how much control she had over squadrons. She replied that all her squadron commanders will be subject to air force law, and could in theory be court martialled, until someone pointed out that there are a number without an officer commanding them!
She then asked all Wing Commanders to return stats based on how many sqns in their wings were commanded by NCOs, and got to that figure. I can’t give you a report I’m afraid, but I heard it through the grapevine from a fairly reliable source.
i can see where the idea of a “Super Sqn” would work but surely effective use of Sectors can complete this?
in our sector we have once a quarter an “air rifle day” at one of the Sqns with a permanent 2 lane Air rifle range. Sector Sqns arrive for training as appropriate and are given the maximum opportunity to shoot based on an even allocation of places over a set time window - it is up to Sqns ot fill their allocation or it is shared out amoungst the other Sqns.
we also have a “greens” weekend at the local Scout camp. aimed primarily at pre-first class Cadets this is an introduction into the world of fieldcraft/AT taking the theory or IET/map&compass work into the field in a “greens” environment
i dare say if our Sector commander wanted to achieve more “training” (by this is mean our core activites) we could as a Sector, leaving Squadrons to adopt thier own “community”/local events on other “non-training weekends”
in truth we do as much outside the Sector as we do with. We have a monthly weekend of no8/L98 training and LF occuring with neighbouring Sqns (both in and out of Sector) and make the most of the active (local) DofE Staff for such expeditions both practise and assessment
i think a Super Squadron would only work if their was an equal share of experienced and qualified staff.
as seen in our sector and on Sqn we utilise the skills not by georgraphy (Sector) but by availability, sometimes this is within Sector “boundaries” others not so. it can be seen Sqn to Sqn the bias in their weekend activities based on the qualified Staff they have, Sectors or “Super Sqns” could well end up with the same bias but be able to reach a greater audience
If it was close squadrons with the notion that staff and cadets transfer and all that will happen will be one, potentially, slightly larger squadron. We had a sqns that have opened DFs due to a perceived demand that have been successful for a few years and then closed. The cadets and staff didn’t all move and these would be cadets and staff effectively on the same squadron.
If it was just pooling resources, many sqns do this already in informal arrangements that work, make it formal and there would be some resistance as I imagine it would require staff to travel to the other sqns on other nights.
If as suggested there was one OC overseeing several sqns and you were the OC of such a beast, you’d be run ragged, as you would (like the OC of a sqn with a DF) be expected to visit the other squadron(s) at least once a month or I’d expect that.
If these OCs were from this enhanced commission process, it wouldn’t suddenly endow them with more time and or energy to do the role properly. I suppose you could always look for people without any family committments whatsoever and no hope of other social distractions to go through this process to take on this role.
In my wing it is more than 10% also. Furthermore two are run by Sgts and hence have less than four years uniformed adult service and can be fresh out of cadet service
And considering that sometimes (right or wrong) SNCO is given as a consolation prize or to get a few years experience is it right that these people are put in charge of sqns.
I think the corps is going to go down the line of super sqns or sector sqns or whatever you will call it to reduce the number of committees to “administer” and to keep officers in charge of sqns in the days of less officers.
This new commissioning system; right or wrong is not giving the ATC enough officers to run the sqns that we have at this moment in time. Either we need more officers or less sqns
[quote=“the silverback” post=8972]
This new commissioning system; right or wrong is not giving the ATC enough officers to run the sqns that we have at this moment in time. Either we need more officers or less sqns[/quote]
How do you know it’s a fault of the new system? We have had more gone through the system than every before (and not just auto-passes, some are failing the filter at Wing HQ).
I dont think the new commissioning system can be blamed for a lack of suitable officers for command - bearing in mind (in an ideal world) you would look for an officer with “a number” of years experience to take command, not someone fresh out of OIC, and the new system has been running, what, 12 months?
IIRC 10 or so years ago we had something like 5/6 people getting commissioned a year, which is now being noticed when it comes to appointing OCs. We had more in the ensuing year, but we’ve only managed a stay still situation in terms of overall numbers and are still at around 55% of establishment.
A PM says you put people who have a few years under their belt into a command and currently on our Wing this is a small pool and there are some who don’t want it. I can’t say that I blame them. There have been a few arms twisted and false promises of support for younger candidates made, just to get a bum on the seat, in the last few years.
However there seems to be quite a few not getting through OASC in the last year or so, which seem to be due to what I would call “interview nerves” and making people think they have to ‘play the game’ rather than be themselves. While there are some who might applaud the attrition rate, it doesn’t bode well for the future.
Following on from GHE’s comments. I have heard of several candidates who have received a letter from OASC saying that they have not met the grade, only to be followed up by a second letter a few weeks later saying that the board have reconsidered and they have actually passed.
Currently i’m aware of only 1 unit in our wing that is run by an NCO and even that unit has an officer on it. As for the Sqns local to me, all have plenty of staff, at least 1-2 officers and the same amount of SNCO’s. Although mine has 4 (Almost 5) officers :pinch: .
Personally I feel that (locally at least) there’s not a lack of staffing, but a lack of willingness within some staff to support the units beyond the door of the Sqn HQ.
We seem set to lose our building in the next few years and my biggest concern is that we get stuck with the sqn down the road and become a super Sqn :unsure: