Staff Qualifications

How is it a “white elephant”? The cost would be absolutely minimal since all it would be is a more visible structure of what is supposed to be already available; and an encouragement to follow a particular path (which will hopefully avoid some of the ‘qualification hopping’ - where someone takes up a place on a course and then rarely/never uses the qualification because they’ve decided to go and do something else).

When you look at the adult SNCO structure currently it is very heavily skewed towards their performance in terms of drill/discip. This is fine if that’s where their interests lay, but for many they couldn’t give a monkey’s about it and have more interest in something else, which doesn’t really get the same recognition in SNCO circles. I’ve known a few SNCOs bin it since the inception of the SNCO structure, because they have been pressured on the drill/discip as they have little interest in it, but they are doing other things, which almost seem to be ignored. Hence the idea of trades for people to get into rather than all having to be the same.

As for getting staff to do particular things this need that member of staff to have an interest in it, which doesn’t mean being nagged into doing it, as that doesn’t get you to a happy place. Cadets are a different animal and can almost be forced to do things, whereas staff if they’re not interested then they are not interested.
There is also in subject areas staff who are a little bit too keen and love to talk themselves up. I know one of the 1st Aid mob who will regale you stories of their daring do wrt FA which is frankly tiresome. These are ordinary bods who seem to walk around either looking for or unlucky enough to come across situations where they can morph into “FA Man”, (I have an image of a Batman like figure with a fully laden FA belt) for balance there may be women like this.

Off the top of my head…

You would need to rewrite/write ACTOs to take the new process into account. I’d assume the legal people would want to OK it - who pays for the wages and fees? What about course content - who will give you top cover for the qualification/ provide train the trainer courses? Some we can do in-house, some not so much.

Then you have the extra training for both the trainers and participants - yes, you have a personal VA allowance, but if you’re the sort of active type who want’s to qualify for a training team, there would have to be extra VA available. Plus CPD, currency etc. Who will pay for the extra 1771s that will be generated by all of this cross wing training?

Take SAA. How many SAA courses are run now, and how many will need to be run inn the first year of this new system to be able to get it up and running? Will the SASC be happy to support the extra courses? Who will pay them?

It might not costs us much when compared to, say a Typhoon, but how many badges could that pay for? It just seems a massive waste of money, when the system you will end up for already exists.

That’s seems to me to be a ridiculous argument…

We are already required to train our staff. We already provide the more expensive NGB qualifications.
All I’m talking about is creating a policy which encourages a new staff member to try different things at low level and then to pick a field they particularly enjoy to have a crack at for a couple of years (or more if they want)… And then for us to be more proactive as an organization in guiding them on that path, and in keeping them engaged.

All that aside, any implication that it’s too expensive to train our staff is, frankly, mental… We’re all supposed to be “instructors”. If we don’t train our staff properly then how can we possibly ever hope to deliver the cadet experience?
It’d be like a print shop saying “It’s too expensive for me to be buying paper…That’s a white elephant.”

a fellow CFAV in our Wing and close personal friend has always been a great fan of introducing the rank of “chief tech”

this would sit above Sgt and would be a “promotion” in recognition for a “specialist trade” in our case as RAFAC CFAV, a qualification or approval in some key areas to “instructor” level

as a quick line in the sand these would be Bronze Level PTS Instructors and Assessors, but that would be too B&W for some examples, such as shooting for example or AT.
In short would be an “instructor” level - be that SAAI, RCO, Watersports, Trekking, Radio or First Aid - or a an-other.
more than just a qualification to not count towards ratios (example BCU 2star), or “entry level” qualification (such as FAAW or Safety supervisor as shooting examples) but an instructor in a topic which progresses the Cadets experiences - such as gaining a Bronze (or higher) level PTS award

it gives those “career Sgts” who have no interest in drill, discip or targetting the WWO office, something to aim for, particularly if they have only a single/narrow interest in the RAFAC experience. We all know that Radio Geek or sharp shooting sniper and is all they are interested in.
As a Sgt they have no interest in taking Cadets to an AEF or holding a Sqn management role (items on the promotion matrix) - they just want to turn up, and have a play in the radio room, are happy to teach the Blue radio course when required, and attends their fair share of Squadron Weekend events, supports the Wing delivery of radio training cours and is generally useful, if somewhat specialised.

I use radio as an easy example, but any “trade” (read “subject matter expert”) and as indicated above could follow the PTS structure.
If capable and qualified (by that a NGB, RAFAC/MOD approval course (ie shooting) or simply given the ok by the Wing SME to train (ie Bronze Radio and First Aid - ie part of the “wing team”) then the individual is eligible to being a “Chief Tech”

Those with such ranks would be expected to maintain their specialist interest with agreed minimal commitment (be it 2-3 courses a year or 5 in every 2 year period) and critically would allow those SNCOs who are not “drill and discip” interested to maintain their interest in uniform/position as a SNCO without any expectation to get involved with drill or discipline which they have little to no interest in.

(i know one such "old-style/direct entry WO who is only interested in shooting and AT. They have all the quals you’d expect for shooting, trekking (ML) and climbing and use these qualifications to great effect and regularly. had they joined in the last 15-20 years they’d be a “career Sgt” having no interest in ticking the missing boxes on the promotion matrix, yet wouldn’t be a true reflection of their skills, experience or qualifications - particularly when compared to some FS or WO who got their simply by ticking matrix boxes)

3 Likes

That’s basically my idea for promotion to FS. It’s also similar to the SCC/RMC who require an instructor qual for CPO/CSgt (but they also require the completion of a course).

Do you know why he feels that would be best achieved with Chief Tech, rather than as the requirement for FS; and what then he considers would be required for FS?

Radio is a nice example as I can follow it with our own example… Our Wing Radio Officer is a WO.
He developed his interest towards FS and is now involved at Region level also. He knows all there is to know about Corps radio and is a great example of a “trade” WO; rather than the outdated idea (which does still persist) that a WO must be all Drill & Discip.

1 Like

You are correct. However, creating a system at a cost to do pretty much exactly what we do now, without that cost is my issue. I’m in no way saying we shouldn’t train our volunteers.

Why bother introducing a new policy that brings nothing extra to the party. Everything you say should happen, is already happening (or capable of happening, if only some WSOs did the job they should).

The AVIP is a great place to signpost potential “career” paths, backed up by information on sharepoint. SME WSOs (in my humble opinion) should be communicating regularly with the sqns, highlighting courses, using social media etc. It shouldn’t take a new ACTO, a new policy, and rank incentives to push people along a route.

Does anybody?? :wink:

What if they don’t? Do they revert to Sgt? FS? I let my RMQ(SR) lapse because the birth of daughter meant I was unable to complete my quad assessment. In this sytem, would I have been demoted?

Recognising knowledge is one thing, equating it to rank is more problematic. And neither of those easily link into management/instructional positions - Especially when our system allows people to move up to wing, but also back down to Sqns (unless you adopt the same conditions of rank as officers).

in my mind this expectation would have equal weight to the expected “12 hours/month”

no one enforces it rigidly and there will be uniformed staff who don’t complete 12 hours a month for whatever reason.
there is a grace period offered - if that is a 12, 24, or 36 months i dunno, but you could argue that the current system is equally open to abuse.
the requirements to reach FS need not be repeated to maintain the rank, likewise for WO - once it is held there is no more expectation to repeat what was required to get there.

I would not expect a demotion - the Chf Tech rank would be in recognition for a specialist skill in the same was promotion to FS or WO is a recognition for ticking boxes.

How would that equate for the commissioned ranks? If I were to accept a SME role, be promoted, and then stand down, I would lose my rank - even though I was supposedly a SME in a particular subject. What about WO rank - what criteria would be needed to be considered for promotion?

I’m trying not to sound overly negative about these schemes, but they seem to reward volunteers who want to treat Sqns as a stepping stone* to a “Wing Career”, and punish volunteers who want to make an impact at Sqn level. 5 years on a sqn sounds like a good, long, period, but when you break it down into hours, it’s really not that much - especially when you take into account how little contact time with cadets you’ll end up with.

*I know I’ve used that term before, and I know people have questioned it, so I’ll try and explain myself.

The Current system: We have a relatively steady rate of NCO progression - position wise. Lets say you have 100 NCOs in the wing, then perhaps 10 will go on to occupy a wing related position. So you are left with 90 NCOs dotted around the Sqn.

The proposed system: Lets say of those 100 NCOs, 80 want to progress to FS, attend the relevant courses, then join a wing training team to get the rank. You now have 20 Sqn Sgts, and 80 FS, whose training time on squadron is greatly reduced because they are off doing CPD and training other squadrons, or they transfer off the unit completely.

The current system means most NCOs will spend their “career” on a Sqn, with a relatively small portion leaving the Sqn to take up a wing post. The proposed system effectively says if you want to be promoted, you need to spend x years on a Sqn, then move to a wing level post. That is brilliant for the wing as a formation, but less brilliant if you are a squadron commander.

I have no problems supporting staff who want to progress - I wouldn’t be an OC if I hadn’t received the JODP lets not forget. But the Sqn system relies on relatively few people moving up. Unless you have several new NCOs starting on every squadron, every year, incentivising people to move on ASAP will cause the Sqn system to collapse.

I’m all for collaborative training, but the priority has to be Sqn > Sector > Wing > Region.

2 Likes

Without wanting to duplicate everything we’ve already discussed in the “WO Scroll” thread I would point out that this idea of “reward” and “punishment” only exists when one views promotion as a reward.

The moment one looks at is as it should be - a means to place people with greater skill/competence/leadership in command of, and responsible for the development of, subordinates - it becomes merely that Sgt Bloggs has the ability, the desire, and the time to devote to being FS Bloggs in charge of 20+ Sgts in his area.
Sgt Smith then who doesn’t have the time, or has little interest in that additional responsibility remains as Sgt Smith and continues the role that she enjoys on her unit. That’s not a punishment.

It’s not a million miles away from your own situation as an OC.
You weren’t given OC as a reward, you took it on in the full knowledge of the additional responsibility.
Likewise with you as OC, another officer on your unit can’t also be OC, but that’s not a punishment on them.

The idea that it would be bad for Squadrons is also a fallacy - it makes the assumption that all those progressing to FS would leave their units. That’s already demonstrably not the case.
Our FS Bloggs there will most likely be filling his wider leadership role in addition to his role on the Sqn; just as all the Wing level instructors (bar the few primary Wing roles) do now.

1 Like

The issue with that is that rank is invariably linked to pay (or VA), and perceived status, So in some ways, you are reducing their VA and Status for choosing to be the unit’s OIC, or Adj, instead of to specialising as a DI. Restriction of rank and/pay is a punishment in the military.

You could end up in situations where you have a “career Sgt” of 10 years on a Sqn, and a FS with 6 years in, who has spent a year as a DI, but binned and returned to a Sqn because of work. One has the higher status and VA level, but both do the same job. How is that fair?

Except that it’s not working properly now. We’ve got lots of staff who don’t really progress with anything, primarily because there’s no push for them to do so, or because we don’t follow up on their desires. We’ve also got staff who take spaces on a course, and then rarely ever use the qualification.

I’d say that what my scheme brings to the table is a clearer understanding (for everyone) of what is available, how to access it, and how to progress; A greater emphasis on utilising qualifications for the benefit of the organisation (less ‘badge collecting’); and an easier and more practical way to judge staff progression for promotion (allowing us to do away with the tick-box ‘matrix’).

I’d say that there are plenty of positives, in return for little additional effort, which justify the small cost of paying someone’s time to write the policy - Hell, we could even get the policy written by a volunteer. I’ll do it myself if asked.

1 Like

Well… The world isn’t fair.

What about the Wg Cdr who turns up to “observe” a day of the Drill course being paid £120 (or whatever it is) vs the FS who’s the chief instructor being paid a fraction of that?

Or we could stipulate that the promotion be to acting rank for a period so that the FS who does a year and then goes back to Sqn only work reverts to Sgt. The SCC do that for promotion to WO.

At any rate, it seems likely that we will eventually adopt the same VA approach as the SCC and ACF which is that there will be flat rates (independent of rank) and paid based upon the role one takes in that event. That will level the “pay” playing field, but until then, a Sgt isn’t having their “pay” restricted; it’s that a FS is taking on more responsibility and having their VA increased accordingly.

One could take your point in fact and use it to argue that the current situation is even worse… The career Sgt who has no desire to take on FS is being paid less than the arbitrarily ‘matrix’-promoted FS who does exactly the same job. That’s not really “fair” either.

pass it isn’t my idea - i am simply sharing one that i heard.

i guess it wouldn’t work as there is no RAF officer rank the RAFAC isn’t using, nor one which is trade specific

this happens anyway doesn’t it?

if promoted on the basis of being a Wing Officer (that accompanies a promotion in rank) and then stand down it is usual to lose that rank is it not?

same as it is now - likewise for FS.

there would be two routes for SNCO
Sgt > Chf Tech
Sgt> FS > WO

(potentially three Sgt > Chf Tech>WO if the individual decided to go down that route in addition but wouldn’t be a shortcut and would still require all FS and WO promotion matrix boxes ticked - but the intention is to recognise those Sgts who are not just doing the bare minimum and remain Sgts, but those Sgts who do a lot for the unit and the Wing, but don’t have interest in ticking matrix boxes and so would remain Sgts for 10+ years)

the Chf Tech is purely for those Sgt who are more “trade” based in their approach to their time with the RAFAC. after four years they have nothing to show for their time versus their peers (who are eligible for FS promotion).
Chf Tech is a way of recognising all that they do in a very specific area to show they are “not just a Sgt” and defines them as someone with experience and knowledge as an SNCO, if only in one (or two) specific skill areas

i haven’t heard of that system.

in our wing we have 1 SNCO at Wing, the WWO - any others at a “Wing level” are purely because the person (ie not the rank) is the best person to be the Sports, radio, first aid , insert other Wing officer here either because of the skills they have outside of the organisation, or passion they have for the topic over other (potentially Officer) candidates

we do have “Sector” SNCOs who can be Sgt, FS or WO, and are drill and discip minded, acting as deputy WWO within their areas but these tend to be titles only, I haven’t seen great evidence of their deployent other than a few nights the Sector NCO visits a Sqn as they requested help with the drill sequence ahead of the Wing competition

if by “proposed system” you mean introducting the Cheif Tech rank then you have misunderstood.

A Chief Tech is what we’d class as a “Career Sgt” now - someone who is unlikely to tick the FS promotion matrix boxes/not interested in promotion and would otherwise be a Sgt for the next 10 years.
they maintain all of their Sqn responsibility but are now wearing a new rank slide in recognition of all the existing commitment they offer in the world of First Aid, Radio, Shooting, AT, insert other here for the Squadron but also the Wing.

i wouldn’t expect any extra commitment from a Chf Tech regarding assisting Wing - it isn’t a Wing role or position to apply for, simply recognition of skills, knowledge, experience and or expertise in an area which is used on Squadron and Wing level already.

Sgt Jones who is regularly seen assisting the Wing First Aid Officer at Wing Courses and typically attends 3 out of 4 courses and often part of the “First Aid Team” which supports the Wing events, and would be an ideal candidate.
Sgt Smith who helps the Wing Radio Officer by teaching the Bronze Radio course, while the Radio Officer is next door teaching the Bronze Cyber course and is often seen supporting the comms at Wing Training Day, Athletics and the Wing Field Craft Exercise, also another ideal candidate.
Sgt Hall is a RCO and attends the Wing shoots, and helps the Wing Shooting officer by taking on the range responsibility for the day allowing the Shooting Officer to top manage the day’s shooting and training

All three of these Sgts have gone above Sqn level commitment and helped out at Wing within a “Wing Team” - these are not official positions to be applied for, nor at they intended to take NCOs away from the Squadrons.
simply recognition that Sgt Hall is qualified in shooting, typically seen at 90% of Wing Shooting events and makes the events happen (rather than just turning up),
that Sgt Smith is a competent Radio operator and instructor of the Blue and Bronze level radio courses, also attends a high percentage of the Wing Courses and within his attendance would reduce the capability of the Wing’s Radio training output.
and that Sgt Jones is a regular at the Wing First Aid events, recognised as an expert in First Aid instruction and a familiar site at Wing events with a first aid box to hand.

there is an argument there are already CFAVs like this who are CIs, they do their bit on Squadron and are also seen at every sports event, or First Aid Course, perhaps a radio amateur and so supports the Wing Radio Courses, or has an arsenal of private weapons and shoots at a private club regularly and so uses these skills in the RAFAC environment too and these persons go without recognition so why start with the SNCOs?

like i say, this isn’t my idea, just one I heard and like the appeal of what it offers. is it perfect? nope but nor is it complete in its thought process

this is what grinds my gears.

i know of a now WO who is simply a “career promotion seeker” - did the complete bare minimum to tick the boxes and now sits at the rank of WO still doing the bare minimum at events, avoids any responsibility, while a new enthusiastic and competent Sgt who has drive, desire, ambition and is competent and confident as a CFAV who makes events happen is seen as junior in terms of reward (VA) and has to wait 8 years until they are considered an equal

1 Like

I have to say that is my own similar experiences with a number of uninvolved or even incompetent FS & WO which is why I’m so keen to change the system entirely and make it all about recognition of skill and advancement and also in expecting more “in return” for wearing the higher rank.

i think it is a number of things
it is a rank which is available the RAFAC doesn’t use
it separates the NCOs into two steams either by a trade (personal area of interest) or by the traditional hat of an SNCO, that of “Drill pig” (or at the very least “Drill and discip” as a one trick pony).

As mentioned before i know a “old-school” direct entry WO (not the proposer of the idea) who was ready to put on Sgt tapes when the new SNCO system came in, recognising that they are not a “traditional WO” in any sense, and simply an uniformed CFAV who is not a Officer (as was the options he had back in the day).
he does however have all the shooting qualifications, is an ML and has climbing quals too and uses them so although not a “drill pig” like some of his fellow WOs, does bring a lot to the party in terms of skills, experience and expertise knowledge yet is seen, by rank at least as a “Drill pig WO”

Personally I’m a massive advocate of removing the “drill pig” idea of what an SNCO “needs to be”. In fact I pushed that a lot with our WWO when the Radio Officer was applying for WO.
That perhaps minimises the usefulness of having Chf Tech - if one gets away from the idea that a FS needs to be a drilly; but I suppose that it could work for those who specialise but only use that specialism on the Sqn (which is what I think I gleaned from your comment earlier on today).

That would be a half-way between the SCC policy, who require an instructor qualification for [the equivalent of] FS; and my desire for a FS to be responsible for more than Sqn-only.

1 Like

Rather like the position of SPO when conducting Live Fire, the Wing Commanders main job is assurance, rather than carrying out the training. He’s responsible to the RC for the safe conduct of activities, regardless of whether he is directly involved.

I don’t disagree that your plan has some merits. I just don’t think that specialisation can be linked to rank or position in our environment.

In my opinion, you would be far better to say that all NCOs remain at Sgt rank, but specialists wear trade badges. Promotion to FS would be by “service knowledge” exam (available for any Sgt to sit), with perhaps “specialists” wearing Chief Tech rank. Same process for WO, with command WO wearing Tate&Lyles? But again, we’d be spending money to change a system, only to achieve exactly the same as we do now.

I don’t disgree that the current situation isn’t perfect, but it is designed to reward experience, and the matrix covers a broad spectrum of ATC activities. Yes, you might have a Sgt attending a greens camp and doing nothing except getting a tick in the box for promotion. But that experience can be used to field cadet questions, even if they never do it again.

Sorry, I was just using it to broadly describe what happens now. NCOs start at Sgt, progress to WO, and at some point a small proportion will end up as wing staff, either in a recognised NCO position, like WWO, or in another position, such as Radio Officer.

It does - I was just stating that, for commisioned volunteers, Rank is purely based on position, so Whilst I can get promoted above FO, I can also be demoted. Why is that also the case for NCOs?

What I find interesting here is the different proposals for SNCO service as a CFAV. We keep getting rumours that the CCF will be introducing SNCOs to the RAF sections alongside the Army. Maybe a different promotion system could be trialed there as we already have a different (albeit probably more generous) system for officer promotion. Then we wouldn’t be putting noses out of joint by experimenting on an existing structure. If it worked out could then be tweaked and rolled out to the ATC.
I really like the idea of Chief Technician for those who have s clear trade expertise but don’t want to go down the matrix route (and added responsibility) for FS

2 Likes