This is something that baffles me. I don’t understand it either and would actually like further leadership development.
I think the good thing about OASC is that it is an independent recommendation, so therefore keeping it impartial. We are all too aware of the politics of this organisation; someone has already mentioned the old style RC interviews and friendly faces.
However, personally, I do like your idea regarding it being more in house. I’m just not sure how that would be kept impartial, unless you were assessed in a separate wing/region?
Fully agree. Again, I didn’t do it either and would have probably been laughed out the door if I had tried. Not that I wanted to try in the first place.
I thought VGS/CCF officers do have to jump through the same hoops. There were CCF Officers on my OIC and I’m pretty sure VGS need to do the same? I stand to be corrected if not.
I meant as in for preparation.
Clearly, the ideal world scenario is that they are supposed to, but as I mentioned a few posts ago, the CCF are often in a position where they have to get someone in place and can’t wait for them to be ready. Some of the guys on my course had never done drill. By the end of the week they were better, sure, but held to a completely different standard to ATC guys. Why? Ditto the VGS bod.
This is something I asked on the course and didn’t get much of an answer to.
Something that is pass/fail has more foundations as an assessment, but it doesn’t mean that it can’t be used a decent assessment tool.
Maybe OIC needs reform rather than be gotten rid of? I was surprised at the lack of content of everyday CFAV work in what was a week heavy with content.
That was my major gripe with it. And when I mentioned that they said “that’s what your Wing should be teaching you”. So what’s the point?
My drill can be taught by my sqn SNCO, or if there’s not one available, the WWO. They can also assess my uniform standards. After that, I get nothing from OIC other than a week in a Mess.
On my OIC course, we had both CCF officers, and a VGS chap! The CCF officers had never done drill, so we all spent some time in the evenings teaching and practising.
The old style course was basically a series of lessons, including defence writing, drill, and mess etiquette to get you started as on officer. There was a day in the hanger, a group presentation, and a final interview. It wasn’t an attendance course, but I feel they were realistic in what they were looking for. For example, we were told poor drill wouldn’t earn a fail, but not attempting to improve your shortcomings or a poor attitude to the course, would. No prep required, except for some pre-course reading on how not to behave like a wazzock in the mess!
Theres is some substance to that though…not saying current OIC content isnt appropriate (never attended it) but across the boards wings should be equipped (material/content/syllabus/plan from hqac/atf) to deliver pre and post training.
In general there needs to be better training for staff to the point of there being “how to be an adj” training and “how to be a training officer” etc. These should probably be run regionally though.
They told us a story of a guy who got sent home for just having the wrong attitude to the training, which makes sense.
This is what I would loved to have seen. I was a Trg Off prior to attending OIC; I had been in the role for a few years, but I felt that I’d never really knew what to do.
Bold is not included anymore. And defence writing was a 30 minutes hash of using the right acronyms, which is far better off as a resource on SharePoint anyway as it changes every 30s.
Am I right in thinking SSIC have an assessed lesson?
I feel like this should also be incorporated in OIC. Furthermore, why is there not more content involving people management etc? I felt the parts that really mattered were simply skimmed over, which wouldn’t be so bad if there was adequate follow up training delivered at wing level.
I mentioned this too (as well as wider ‘dealing with cadets’ points) and was told that as officers we wouldn’t be… And that when we did have to as OCs we’d be back for the squadron commanders course and that would be done then.
Personally I’d bin OASC. If I were a new adult volunteer, I simply wouldn’t bother with it, or considering the commission, getting to Cranditz for one day and night from the wilds of the Westcountry just wouldn’t appeal.
No issues with the 5 days for OIC, but as alluded to above, there is perhaps some elements ripe for review and improvement.
Of course we have standards and certain red lines that must be upheld, but I feel we need to make it easier and more welcoming to get more new CFAV’s through the door.
As for making CI some form of uniformed role. Absolutely never. We would never function without the fantastic cadre of CI’s, most of whom don’t want to be uniform. Upset them, force then out or stop anyone else following in their shoes, and we either destroy, or radically change the organisation, and I believe for the worst.
One of the ironies of OASC is that the requirement for us to do it, came about when the MoD cuts hit around 10 years ago as the RAF didn’t require enough officers to really sustain OASC as a FT employment opportunity. There was some guff put out there that officers in the RAF were moaning about Air Cadet officers, didn’t know what we were doing so to save jobs at OASC the requirement of Air Cadet officers to attend was ‘invented’ to be able to maintain jobs. I’ve never been convinced that it suits who and what we are or do, even when we were VR(T) and even less now.
All it seems to do is add another thing to do which as said adds time to a process that seems with pre uniform courses just seems to go on much, much longer than it should for a hobby.
So it’s worth bearing in mind that any officer who has been an officer for say more than 8/9 years never went to OASC. It brings a smirk to my face that practically every officer prepping people for commissions now, will have just done the “RC chat” and OIC, they wouldn’t have even done any sort of pre-course.
