I’m sorry you feel that way. Whilst I don’t want to urinate on your chips, don’t forget that OASC is only really a way for the RAF to make sure that the people that enter into IOT have the capability to be trained - it is not a qualification in itself.
My regional board was over an hour long, and I received a grilling from the RC and two wing commanders about Current affairs, UK Foreign policy, The RAF, The ATC, plus I had scenario questions. And that was after completing a similar grilling at wing level. Not quite the wink and nod that some people think it was.
The pre-OIC paperwork is a bit outdated and could do with an update from what I remember. For example, it says cash only in the mess, but you could pay by card during my course late last year.
The ILM isn’t cheap either, 3 figures, if I remember correctly.
I believe ATF is changing for all areas
They are getting changes to FTRS contracts to enable them to spend some time away from Sleaford Tech and see what the ‘real world’ looks like so they can bring their training in line with what is really needed by the staff on units
Putting things at Region is all well and good of you are in one of the regions with decent facilities and transport links. It can be a long old journey for S&NI for example.
Don’t forget part of the appeal in centralising this was that you get 1 standard not 33. And I do think that is of benefit.
Maybe keeping the same assessment standards but moving the locations and personnel around would help. Could we use whatever the army/navy do for example?
I would see a “central standard,” controlled by RAFAC, as impossible.
Prior to becoming a flt cdr at Cranditz, I did the “Personnel Selection Officers Cse” (PSOC); this qualified me to sit on the then OASC Board. This was a 2 week cse, very intense, & I do not see how the PSOC qualification could be handled any other way, or used effectively within RAFAC.
You would be stretching resources within RAFAC, & have widely differing standards if delegated to wgs. Unless you accept a huge dilution in experience / standards, leave it to the RAF.
If I’m correct, it isn’t watered down for the RAFAC. The process now mirrors the regular selection process, which is also just the one day and interview is also only 12 minutes.
I was thinking more of the SASC allowing SATTs to deliver training, but point taken.
But since we are only looking for youth club leaders, surely we only really need to check that someone has a basic understanding of the role they’ve volunteered for, and is happy to undertake that role? People can be taught leadership, instructional technique etc
I would see the model as being ATF staff go to a location for 2 weeks and deliver, assisted by “wing” staff who are delivering the pre-courses. They could do OIC one week and SSIC the next.
Facilities could be a TAC. The biggest problems would be accommodation and food
Therein lies the potential problem. If the basic “nouse” isn’t there in the first place, no chance.
History - albeit this applied to full-time officer trg at Cranditz.
There was a sinusoidal wave for success - based on academic passes (& first time or not), motivation & board grades. Assuming A level / uni grades were as desired, those who started trg in say late autumn to Jan had (a) got their educational grades first time round & in general, the branch selection that they wanted, & generally had very good / good OASC board grades. High first time graduation rate.
Next in line for the entry or so afterwards were those candidates who maybe failed their exams the first time around, but managed on the second attempt; they may or may not have had their first branch choice. Board grades - good / average. Graduation rate not so high.
Finally, coincidental with those who might have only just passed their exams second time around (& probably only had their second choice of branch), came those candidates who had been pushed along with a lower board grade (& the lower end of any aptitude scores) - end of the FY, fill those trg slots! Guess what, lowest first time graduation rate of them all.
