I don’t doubt it, and for what it’s worth, I totally see the point for people joing the RAF. But we don’t hold Air Force commission any more. I’m not deciding if I should charge down an enemy machine gun post, I’m deciding if I want a Ginger nut or bourbon with my tea, as I reply to half a dozen pointless emails…
There is nothing I can do as a Flt Lt in the ATC that a SNCO can not do. We don’t put SNCOs through OASC, so why bother with the CFC?
It’s definitely a good point, but I really do believe it boils down to the traditional role that an officer would take and the leadership expected.
However, nowadays you have SNCOs filling the roles of officers, partly due to the lack of them.
I think it would be a shame if OASC disappeared for us. As said previously, I thoroughly enjoyed and learnt a lot about myself.
Maybe there should be another similar selection process for SNCOs? It only seems fair that our officers have to be selected rather than talk their way into a rank. However, and I say this loosely, I know many people that went down the SNCO route because the commissioned route was off putting.
In the ATC we have direct entry Sgts.
The only parts of the RAF to also have this are aircrew and air traffic. Both of whom go through OASC.
Your argument about different systems only works if we take on ACs.
We are not a special case. Either OASC is fit for ATC pers or it isn’t. At the moment we’re operating some weird double standard system that is failing both cadres.
OASC would have been better if they’d actually thought about it and made it relevant to us as an organisation, but they didn’t, it was effectively what they do for the RAF, which was not really appropriate. The content should be heavily focussed on the ATC and what we do, as people now are not as likely to have much if any contact with the RAF, as we would have done, not ignore it but keep it to the bits you need to know. It would have been more preparatory to discuss the irate parent or teenager coming in all angst ridden, but would be outside the experience of the OASC staff, so they went for what they know, which isn’t us.
Coming to this a bit late, I remember my RC chat, it was as nerve wracking as any interview, because in any interview situation you don’t want to mess up. I was a grilled on the RAF (with some really obtuse questions), ATC org stuff, current affairs but there was a reasonable Q&A on the ATC, where do you see it going, views and opinions etc, which is what seems to be missing from OASC, but is extremely important. So while it might not have had the formality of OASC, as mvl says it wasn’t a 2 minute chat, handshake and there you are. There were a fair number told to come back in 6 months. We had one CWO in the Wing who was a ‘blue-eyed poster boy”, met the RC on a number of occasions and all very pally, a shoe in so everyone thought, he got binned and left the Corps. It made people sit up and take notice. He was debriefed by the WSO who made it clear he had not shown due respect to the board, the process and others doing it. His OC said it was the first time they had ‘failed’ at something. The view was he thought all he had to do was turn up, which the panel took umbrage to. There were others, mostly beloved ex-cadets thinking all they had to do was turn up Mostly people took the whole process seriously.
As for whether it was a valid system, that’s irrelevant. It’s how it was done and there are still more “RC chat” officers than there are “OASC officers” in the ATC CFAV and TBH I can’t see that the OASC generation are any better or worse than us lot, although they might like to think they are. What’s gone cannot be changed just like those who did the early OASC, did something different to later candidates and because it’s not like it was feel they are better.
I’ve come to feel after my years of experience that there is very little actual difference between different types of volunteer staff in the ATC, except what exists in people’s minds in some completely arbitrary way as to what each group, does or can do. To this end why can’t SNCOs run sqns? Because SNCOs don’t run sqns in the RAF? But we are not the RAF, never have been and never will be, so why persist with this. I’ve known SNCOs run sqns well only to be usurped by an officer just because they are an officer and the SNCO declined the opportunity to apply to become an officer, it is completely nuts. You want people who can do the jobs because they can and want to and not because of the badge they wear. TBH there are CIs who could run sqns as well as anyone in a blue suit.
I would consider them “special case” SNCOs & not relevant to the discussion - & I started off my RAF career as AEOp so well aware of the requirements 
The argument is, they go to OASC because their roles require higher levels of aptitude and responsibility.
We’re asking our direct entry SNCOs to look after people’s kids. If that responsibility isn’t worthy of the candidates being vetted further, I don’t know what is.
Hmmm, that’s not measured at OASC.
I appreciate that in practice, there are SNCOs running sqns, but surely the general principle is that the officers are nominally in charge of sqns & supervise the SNCOs?
How effective is OASC at vetting? It felt to me that the whole thing is not there for you to pass, and more there for you to fail, if this makes sense?
Do we have a relatively recent success rate? I imagine it is fairly high…?
Pass rate is +/- 85% for RAFAC.
Most of the hangar exercises will seem like they have no solution, but that is meant to be. It is to see how you handle pressure and a team within that pressured environment.
No, but we’re looking for that level of responsibility. If the counter argument is that that’s not what OASC measures, why send officers through it? We’re not in the RAF.
It’s a redundant and expensive measure to only send some staff through and not others because of arbitrary line in the sand that we impose and that has no actual effect on the jobs that volunteer does.
If the argument is that going through OASC makes officers better, then why not send SNCOs through it too? Some of them will end up going into the officer ranks, some will end up running sqns. Even if they do neither of those things, they are directly leading the SNCO teams on their unit and leading the cadets. So why wouldn’t we want to assess their leadership?
The double standard we have and perpetuate only exists because HQAC and the RAF have no idea what we actually do.
I’m not sure if that is the right terminology - OASC is to select officers.
With regard to new SNCOs, what is needed is the appropriate level of local trg & supervision to ensure development in the right direction. I’m not sure that OASC would be of benefit for this, & also not sure if they would have the resources to take on SNCO screening.
I think by the time you get to OASC your wing have given a pretty good indication that they want you; hence the high pass rate - for RAFAC it just seems to be a commitment test; if you go and make a reasonable job of it, you’re good
So if it isn’t a selection course, if it doesn’t actually help in training, then despite being an insight into our parent forces selection procedure, and giving a sense of achievement, why do we do it…?
For me do away with OASC and go back to Regional Boards.
Close ATF as a facility and instead use the staff to assist Regional or maybe even Wing Training and to ensure consistency in those locally delivered courses. (I would prefer Wing Courses but numbers might make Region more realistic).
Region Training could deliver all training from a set syllabus with the central team auditing much like Small Arms Corps do for SATTs
And aircrew.
And air traffic controllers.
It is there to select officers and all direct entry SNCOs. Which is exactly what every uniformed CFAV is.
If we’re saying that each Wing is equipped to do that for SNCOs, why aren’t they equipped to do that for officers?
If they’re not equipped to do that for officers, why are they ok for SNCOs?
I know what the system is. My contention is that it is inadequate and poorly thought through by people who don’t understand what it does for us.
Yeah, that is the structure everyone aspires to, I think. But I would wager that at least a quarter of squadrons have a non-commissioned rank running the show these days.
Edited to add: What we need is to recruit more officers, faster. But, as good as they might be, OASC could not cope with the size of the surge we would need (assuming we could find enough people to fill replace the NCO OICs).
Not as such, SNCO aircrew & Air Traffic SNCOs are very different specialist branches, with aptitude / psychometric testing. They should be ignored for the purposes of OASC / RAFAC.
If that was the case then the RAF wouldn’t waste the time and money putting them through the leadership activities and tests in the hangar.
Clearly, their leadership is being assessed because those roles require higher levels of leadership.
As such, it is directly relatable to the SNCO cadre in the RAFAC.
The second point of my last post is still relevant. Either our personnel are trusted to assess and develop candidates (SNCOs) or they’re not (officers). That HQAC persists in holding both opinions simultaneously is pretty insulting.
It would be better if we moved away from the sqn structure of Officer running the squadron with Officers/SNCOs and CIs.
This IMO tries to mimic a military employment situation, where if one leaves another is drafted in or in extremis advertised for. We have to take what we get come along and hopefully they put up with the Corps and can be hoodwinked into uniform. All the while we have this model, especially the Officer running a sqn we will struggle.
I don’t agree. We are a military organisation, based on the RAF, so that’s the organisational structure that we follow.
A better option would be to look at why we aren’t recruiting enough uniformed staff and what we can do to rectify the problem.
You’re still going to have the same staffing issues even if you move away from the current structure.
I’m not going to repeat to what has already been said…see the “likes” off if your keen to know what I’d put here
However I feel the real desire for staff progression to be officers is from the Wing…in my experience at least its to fill Sqn OC positions.
I’d suggest half of our Wings OCs would either of failed OASC or simply not bothered with the process had it been the route for them (ie these are pre-OASC officers) or they are on the other end of the process and “baby officers” who were thrust in to an Sqn OC role within 18 months of passing OASC.
My point?
In our Wing at least, many who are Sqn OCs are filled not by the people who have the right skills, knowledge or experience but by those willing to do the role in some cases regardless of competency - either through lack of knowledge and or experience or through the ability to get away with it despite a lack of “officer qualities” (ie leadership)