As Perry, I agree with the majority of Redowling’s points. What would be the point of going to do the (albeit shortened) OASC process if we are then given an ATC commission? Would that then be canned and returned to the old wing/regional boards? Would that then lead to the previous situation of officers that perhaps not as high standard?
I, although still very new to VRT, am very proud to do what I do and for whom I do it. AND to TELL people what I do, and who I do it for. Would the ATC commission be as highly regarded? Possibly not.
And would that again lead to conflict on camps etc? Is a Plt Off (ATC) going to get as much respect from base personnel? Cant see why they would in all honesty.
[quote=“cilewis” post=8590]What would be the point of going to do the (albeit shortened) OASC process if we are then given an ATC commission? [/quote]The primary benefit of going through OASC is that it is a process which allows us to tap into the RAF’s resources in this area and to get a level of standardisation and quality back into the system. those improved standards will be just as desirable for a tin-pot ATC commission as they are for a tin-pot VR(T) one
OASC had the spare capacity anyway, what with there being no significant air force any more. :mad:
As for respect from RAF personnel, I’ve been in the ATC for 16 years and I’ve never had an issue. I find that so long as you aren’t too demanding and don’t act like a nob people will try to help you out if they can. In fact the regulars may actually cut you a bit more slack as they will have lower expectations, though as long as we wear RAF uniform there will always be a requirement for some sort of standards.
[quote=“cilewis” post=8590]As Perry, I agree with the majority of Redowling’s points. What would be the point of going to do the (albeit shortened) OASC process if we are then given an ATC commission? Would that then be canned and returned to the old wing/regional boards? Would that then lead to the previous situation of officers that perhaps not as high standard?
I, although still very new to VRT, am very proud to do what I do and for whom I do it. AND to TELL people what I do, and who I do it for. Would the ATC commission be as highly regarded? Possibly not.
And would that again lead to conflict on camps etc? Is a Plt Off (ATC) going to get as much respect from base personnel? Cant see why they would in all honesty.[/quote]
Most RAF personnel (Airman, NCO’s) don’t even know that VRT officers hold a commission it wasn’t taught when I went through Halton not sure if it is now but most Airman wrongly just think they are cadet officers with a pretend rank like cadet NCO’s
This is not even a discussion topic in my wing, it’s as if nothing is happening.
I am curious though as my question is related to this.
How many Wings have a mandatory minimum standards of training for all new adult staff with the expectation that all staff will comply before they are due to sign on again.
Th standard required is Basic, A first aid qualification and some form of method of instruction course ( civilian qualifications maybe considered at the discretion of the WSO concerned )
[quote=“xXx” post=8667]How many Wings have a mandatory minimum standards of training for all new adult staff with the expectation that all staff will comply before they are due to sign on again.
Th standard required is Basic, A first aid qualification and some form of method of instruction course ( civilian qualifications maybe considered at the discretion of the WSO concerned )[/quote]
If it was used as a reqirement to sign on after every 5 years, how many staff would resign as opposed to re-sign? What is the draw for the individual adult to comply?
What I find incredible is that this sort of attitude doesn’t even exist in the general workplace, yes you have CPD amd keeping some things current, but nothing as anal as this. However at work you get paid (afterall you’re salaried) and all of the expenses/costs are covered by the employer. If I go on a course or do training of some sort, the company gives me the time off (I still get paid), pays the course/trainer fee and where appropriate supplies a hire car, refunds fuel and pays for a hotel. In the ATC you have to drive and can’t claim travel and pay, in some instances pay the course fee or “nick” the money from squadron funds and above all else do this in your spare time or by taking holiday, in some instances unpaid.
Civilian qualifications maybe considered … sorry shouldn’t that read Civilian qualifications will be accepted.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8678]What I find incredible is that this sort of attitude doesn’t even exist in the general workplace, yes you have CPD amd keeping some things current, but nothing as anal as this. However at work you get paid (afterall you’re salaried) and all of the expenses/costs are covered by the employer. If I go on a course or do training of some sort, the company gives me the time off (I still get paid), pays the course/trainer fee and where appropriate supplies a hire car, refunds fuel and pays for a hotel. In the ATC you have to drive and can’t claim travel and pay, in some instances pay the course fee or “nick” the money from squadron funds and above all else do this in your spare time or by taking holiday, in some instances unpaid.
[/quote]
on the plus side however my work dont expect me to work evenings, or on the weekends, they dont expect me to work FOC, or dicate my personal appearance.
its a product of the organisation and hobby we chose to be part of.
i am a Branch Member (and Parade Marshall) with the local RBL, i get no expenses paid, no pay, i have attended a selection of courses and meetings with no hire car offered or an “expenses” fund allocated.
we could compare until we’re blue in the face the difference between the ACO and full time work and lack of benefits and the like (Pension, flextime, health cover, personal airmiles account…) but its a hobby, and to a certain degree a charitable one at that
[quote]xXx wrote:
How many Wings have a mandatory minimum standards of training for all new adult staff with the expectation that all staff will comply before they are due to sign on again[/quote]
Interesting - as I’ve heard on the jungle drums that this is the kind of things that is being considered further up the food chain than Wings …which Wing are we talking about? (PM if you’d rather not say on here)
BASIC is a requirement for potential Staff Cadets, CIs, and Service Instructors. There is no requirement (other than for interest/refresher) for uniformed staff to complete the course, since the content is covered on SSIC and OIC.
Regarding all staff having a first aid and MOI qual - not a bad idea to my mind, since the vast majority of staff will give some form of instruction at some time or another, and anyone could be required to deal with a first aid situation at any time.
So long as the Wing concerned allows equivalent civilian qualifications (e.g. PTTLS, Cert Ed, PGCE, FAW, etc.) in lieu …got to be honest, I think it sounds fairly reasonable.
I still think there is some mileage in the ACO investigating the ACF “Civilian Assistant” model (in addition to having CIs) …that way, anyone who wanted to be a general “helper” wouldn’t have to do MOI (I still think first aid is a good idea) if they just - for example - ran the canteen or helped with admin.
[/b]The standard required is Basic, A first aid qualification and some form of method of instruction course (civilian qualifications maybe considered at the discretion of the WSO concerned)
[/quote]
There’s been a fair bit of talk on this site about certain VR(T) officers being overweight and unable to pass any form of fitness test, or generally looking like a bag of spuds in uniform. Whilst we can argue that we may well value the contribution that our more corpulent colleagues can make, why not give these individuals a ‘Commandant’s Commission’ and ‘reward’ those who maintain the same military standards as their Regular or other Reservist colleagues a Queen’s Commission?
How about we open that up to educational standards too, as well as fitness. Then we can also open it up and say there are the same medical requirements and the same leadership potential standards.
I am sure that both VRTs left in the corps will cope.
The point is, there are excellent officers out there who migh not meet the physical standards of the RAF Officer but do a very good job and are very committed to the roles. There are also officers who are fit, physical and pants. Why should they have a different commission.
I think if we want to go down the route of two commissioned streams, the “Queens Commission” should be through completion of the FULL RIOT not just a physical test.
I would get myself into shape to be allowed the privilege of graduating from RAFC Cranwell, which is currently out of my reach due to other medical conditions
