TCoS Review (One for VRT)

Here is another.

When i was younger when sholder pads were in and grunge was the next big thing in the pop world. I was refused entry to HM forces on medical grounds (eyesight). I am now uniformed in the Air cadets is said HM forces. As some would beleve walting it up reliving my failed career playing at soldiers.
Becasue I do not look a 25 year old racing snake; middle age sort of sneeks up on you, what shoild I do. By the way when i was 25 I was that racing snake but now slow and steady wins the race…

i. Should I resign because I could never be Dai Sapper or
ii, carry on as I enjoy what I am doing and think I am making a difference in my little part of the ACO

discuss

If we’re going to pick on the ‘fatties’ as some put it I agree with Juliet mike the educational standard should be high also.

I wonder if many of our skinner brethren would agree to that!

Whilst there may be a few, I’m sure that the majority of RAFVR(T) officers meet the educational standards - 2 A-levels, isn’t it?

Be interesting to see if there are any officers on the boards who don’t, I stand ready to be corrected!

The major difference between the average candidate for a regular commission, school will still represent near memories and be a significant chunk of their life and things like GCSEs and A Levels may still have some relevance. Whereas VR(T) candidates will have significant experience and learning outside of the school environment. You have to wonder, if you are say between 28 and 48 what significance O Levels/GCSEs and A Levels done in the hazy past, carry in relation to the role. If you were applying for a real job, while they’d go on your CV or application as an indicator that you went to school, however their material importance to the job you’re applying for is less than experience and skills that you bring.

The commission application forms for VR(T) seem to be the same as they send out for Regulars aimed at the 18-25 age group. I was 32 when I applied for a the VR(T), being asked any sort of question about school life and exams could have been filled in, but of no relevance to me, given I hadn’t been at school for 14 years; working for 13 of them and married for 10 years with 3 children. If OASC as it seems are still asking these questions, someone there needs to get a bit of focus on the reality of the VR(T). If they can’t are they really the right people to be doing the screening?

[quote=“MattB” post=8891]Whilst there may be a few, I’m sure that the majority of RAFVR(T) officers meet the educational standards - 2 A-levels, isn’t it?

Be interesting to see if there are any officers on the boards who don’t, I stand ready to be corrected![/quote]

The requirement when I was commissioned was five O Levels, which I exceeded… I have six.

:mrgreen:

The requirement for ‘A’ Levels came in following Options For Change in 1992. In any case and as has been said above; what possible relevance do qualifications taken over a quarter of a century ago have compared to life experience accumulated since then? I can’t even tell you what my six ‘O’ Levels were in, let alone what grades I had. I think I might also have had an ‘A’ Level…

I happen to think qualifications aren’t a important as the ability to do the job.

Equally someone may be ‘fat’ and equally capable of doing the job. There’s not a single activity I’ve not been able to do because of my size.

Amazing how people jump to defend the qualification corner but jump on ‘fat’ people.

I don’t know whether it contributes anything to this discussion or not, but I believe that in the States they have CAP types who are ‘authorised’ to wear the USAF uniform with CAP insignia because they meet the USAF standards and other who wear a more civvy/emergency services type get up because they can’t or don’t want to. As far as I’m aware there’s no stigma attached.

Similar to the ‘two commissions’ idea earlier?

I have for many years regarded many formal education qualifications to like a broken pencils … plentiful and pointless.

I do happen to think that, at the very least, staff should be able to function is maths and English at the level of a 16-18 year old. I’ve seen a number of staff who struggle to communicate in the written or verbal form and with basic numeracy. As a result effectively fail to get things across to cadets, which is bad.

Well qualification wise I did pretty bad at school mainly to messing about. The best GCSE I got was a D not good at all however I got into the RAF as unqualified which you could do back then as long as you scored high enough in the aptitude. The only “real” Q i got in the RAF was a level 3 NVQ in aircraft engineering again not exactly great! I now work as a Nuclear engineer most of the guys I work with went to Uni and they have no common sense but have Q’s coming out of their ears.

The point im trying to make is just because someone has no Q’s in an area it dont mean they cant do the job.

[quote=“aerobat” post=8899]I happen to think qualifications aren’t a important as the ability to do the job.

Equally someone may be ‘fat’ and equally capable of doing the job. There’s not a single activity I’ve not been able to do because of my size.

Amazing how people jump to defend the qualification corner but jump on ‘fat’ people.[/quote]

I agree that poor literacy skills reflect badly on the member of staff and the organisation as a whole, particularly when demonstrating said poor skills in a letter or on the squadron website. However, I would suggest that these skills are best checked at the point of application by some form of written test, rather than relying on the presence or otherwise of GCEs/GCSEs taken decades earlier.

Most of the officers of my acquaintance with poor literacy skills actually have English Language ‘O’ Level qualifications, but also have 30 years of bad habits! Conversely, I know people without good grades at school who now have superb literacy. By way of example, I know people who didn’t take History ‘O’ Level or GCSE, but who are now published and respected historians.

I applaud the comments regarding what could be seen as a two-tier commissioning system. Indeed, why not include educational qualifications and leadership ability too? I also agree that having VR(T) officers do ROIT (or a version of it run by OACTU not ATF) would further enhance their credibility. The bottom line in my view is why should someone who has the leadership ability and officer qualities of a pot plant, or the appearance and bearing of a rag-and-bone man be granted a Commission just because they ‘can do the job’? If an individual can demonstrate the same leadership skills, officer qualities, standards and bearing as any other serving military officer (Regular or Reserve) then fine, award them a Queen’s Commission. If they cannot meet those standards, for whatever reason, then the Commandant’s Commission would have to suffice.

I am personally getting fed up with people whining that they should be commissioned just because they can do the job the ACO expects them to do. Wake up, dry your eyes Princesses, and call me ‘fatist’ if you want, but the Queen’s Commission is a precious thing which should ONLY be for those who meet strict criteria; it should absolutely be earned and having one should be seen as being a member of an ‘exclusive club’. It should not be viewed as the God-given right of anyone who is just ‘doing their job’!

The problem is set the bar too high and not enough get through, afterall we are not seeking regular or active reserve commissions. You would also end up with a situation that VR(T) put through a similar process to the reserves might increase claims in years to come for pension rights. If a disclaimer to these was sought to be signed on application, why bother with all the aggro. Plus many staff find it difficult to take a week’s holiday for camps etc, so to asking them to take 2 weeks (from say 4/5 weeks entitlement) and further weekends if they do the full RIOT, the benefits to them personally need to be good, clear and set in stone, otherwise what is the purpose, other than maybe being perceived as ‘better’ when you happen to bump into non VR(T). Whoopee.

Frankly should we care what regulars/reserves think no, I’m too long in the tooth to even think about being bothered, you might scare young boys and girls with the rhetoric. They are more than welcome to take over from me at anytime, as long as they do all that I do at weekends and non parade nights, as well as parade nights. Why aren’t there huge queues to do what we do, just look around at what is expected and the other bits that come with it, juggling work and home with cadets, especially for Sqn Cdrs. Getting people to volunteer themselves for anything is hard, make it too hard without tangible and visible benefits and they will be even more reluctant.

I will gladly admit I’m wrong if you and others near to you have 3 or 4 people from your sqns all vying for commission and meet the standards described so that they can fight for a “big seat” in a few years.

OASC are aware that Candidates for VR(T) may be older than their usual ‘Customers’ and tailor their questions accordingly.

The focus is on achievements in your life, not just your Education.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8914]The problem is set the bar too high and not enough get through, afterall we are not seeking regular or active reserve commissions. You would also end up with a situation that VR(T) put through a similar process to the reserves might increase claims in years to come for pension rights. If a disclaimer to these was sought to be signed on application, why bother with all the aggro. Plus many staff find it difficult to take a week’s holiday for camps etc, so to asking them to take 2 weeks (from say 4/5 weeks entitlement) and further weekends if they do the full RIOT, the benefits to them personally need to be good, clear and set in stone, otherwise what is the purpose, other than maybe being perceived as ‘better’ when you happen to bump into non VR(T). Whoopee.
O
Frankly should we care what regulars/reserves think no, I’m too long in the tooth to even think about being bothered, you might scare young boys and girls with the rhetoric. They are more than welcome to take over from me at anytime, as long as they do all that I do at weekends and non parade nights, as well as parade nights. Why aren’t there huge queues to do what we do, just look around at what is expected and the other bits that come with it, juggling work and home with cadets, especially for Sqn Cdrs. Getting people to volunteer themselves for anything is hard, make it too hard without tangible and visible benefits and they will be even more reluctant.

I will gladly admit I’m wrong if you and others near to you have 3 or 4 people from your sqns all vying for commission and meet the standards described so that they can fight for a “big seat” in a few years.[/quote]

I think we should be seeking people for COMMISSIONS full stop; the qualities required should be the same regardless of where you serve. But I totally agree that the ROIT is a hurdle, so are the additional weekends; and so they should be! If you want the commission, then you’ll do the extra work, otherwise settle for a lower appointment or do something else! And frankly, we absolutely should care what Regulars/Reserves think, at the moment, most of them think we’re a bunch of whining, scruffy, unfit to**ers and in a lot of cases, we are; we need to change that perception.

The VR(T) needs to stop believing it’s a ‘special case’ and stop bleating that it’s such a hard thing balancing work and cadet commitments such that nobody else could do it. What we’re talking about here is Service in the round and there is an apparent lack of understanding regarding what our Regular and Reservist colleagues actually do. Reserve officers work full time like VR(T) do, they attend their Sqns on Parade nights and weekends, they will also have to undertake secondary duties and the administration of their Flts outside of those times and that means evenings. Most Regular officers I know, outside of Op tours, frequently work 11 + hours a day, they too have secondary duties and the personnel management of their airmen to do, much of which can only be done out of work. Please don’t think for a moment that any of these officers could not run an ATC Sqn; they could and I’m pretty sure actually have!

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=8933]
The VR(T) needs to stop believing it’s a ‘special case’ and stop bleating that it’s such a hard thing balancing work and cadet commitments such that nobody else could do it. What we’re talking about here is Service in the round and there is an apparent lack of understanding regarding what our Regular and Reservist colleagues actually do. Reserve officers work full time like VR(T) do, they attend their Sqns on Parade nights and weekends, they will also have to undertake secondary duties and the administration of their Flts outside of those times and that means evenings. Most Regular officers I know, outside of Op tours, frequently work 11 + hours a day, they too have secondary duties and the personnel management of their airmen to do, much of which can only be done out of work. Please don’t think for a moment that any of these officers could not run an ATC Sqn; they could and I’m pretty sure actually have![/quote]

You draw some interesting parallells there - all rubbish, but interesting none the less.

Reserve officers are commanding a group of adults, who are being paid to be there, and have a very clear set of sanctions that can be applied if they break the rules. Whether thats simply throwing them off the unit, docking pay, or sending them off to colchester. The sanctions are there, known about and the ADULTS that it involves know about them. Don’t reserve units also have full time admin staff to do some of that admin work?

Regular officers are also commanding a group of adults, who are doing their day job. They’ve completed extensive training and had strict discipline instilled in them from day 1. Again, there are a set of very clear sanctions that can be applied, all of which are known, and likely to have been experienced during training. They have a whole infrastructure behind them supporting them in their jobs.

VR(T) officers on the other hand are commanding a group of volunteer adults and a whole bunch of teenagers. The adults have mixed backgrounds, from ex-regulars who think they are the bees knees and can do a better job (but rarely step up to do it) through to parents of little johnny and are only there to make sure that said offspring gets promoted and all the opportunities. The staff rarely cause the problems. The teenagers on the other hand are there voluntarily (or foisted there by parents), have little in the way of discipline, and know that any sanctions we can apply are a joke. We can’t even stop them going flying at the moment, and funnily enough, a lot of cadets don’t seem that bothered. I’ve not had a single cadet asking about when the next flying slot is. They seem to accept that its gone for now, and aren’t that bothered. Last time I checked, there is no infrastructure in place to support us. I can’t just pick up the phone and request MT to send a minibus to move some people around. If uniform needs replacing, I can’t just wander out of work and down to stores to get it replaced - its a 3-4 week process.

As for the sanctions we do have, we can’t even dismiss a cadet for bad behaviour without going through several layers of beaurocracy.

Oh, and as for the regulars working 11 hours a day - welcome to our world. I tend to do about 16 when its a parade night, then I have travel time on top of that.

I’d actually quite like to see a regular officer come and run a cadet squadron for 6 months. I wonder how much hair they’d have left, and how many staff and cadets they’d have? On the other hand, I wouldn’t even consider going to run a regular or reserve squadron (I won’t even run an ATC squadron, I’m no mug), although I suspect that I might fare better than the regular coming to run an ATC squadron.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8914]The problem is set the bar too high and not enough get through, afterall we are not seeking regular or active reserve commissions. You would also end up with a situation that VR(T) put through a similar process to the reserves might increase claims in years to come for pension rights. If a disclaimer to these was sought to be signed on application, why bother with all the aggro. Plus many staff find it difficult to take a week’s holiday for camps etc, so to asking them to take 2 weeks (from say 4/5 weeks entitlement) and further weekends if they do the full RIOT, the benefits to them personally need to be good, clear and set in stone, otherwise what is the purpose, other than maybe being perceived as ‘better’ when you happen to bump into non VR(T). Whoopee.

Frankly should we care what regulars/reserves think no, I’m too long in the tooth to even think about being bothered, you might scare young boys and girls with the rhetoric. They are more than welcome to take over from me at anytime, as long as they do all that I do at weekends and non parade nights, as well as parade nights. Why aren’t there huge queues to do what we do, just look around at what is expected and the other bits that come with it, juggling work and home with cadets, especially for Sqn Cdrs. Getting people to volunteer themselves for anything is hard, make it too hard without tangible and visible benefits and they will be even more reluctant.

I will gladly admit I’m wrong if you and others near to you have 3 or 4 people from your sqns all vying for commission and meet the standards described so that they can fight for a “big seat” in a few years.[/quote]

Are there lots of people applying and not getting through the commissioning process?

We already do a very watered down version of commissioning selection because we are not regulars or reservists (as in Auxiliary Air Force). If we value the role and the status of VRT we need to maintain a selection process to ensure minimum standards.

I do agree that having to do RIOT would have a significant impact on my time for ACO activities, I wouldn’t have the spare holiday to do an annual camp in addition and would have to significantly cut back my other cadet weekends. It sounds fun as an idea but in reality it would a logistical struggle.

However I do think we need to be mindful of what the regulars think of us. I find a lot of them (especially the ex cadets) to be very supportive of the ACO, including the VRT. Those are important relationships to build, we rely on the support of regulars on camps, station visits, other activities, parent units etc. We should also bear in mind that part of our remit is to be local representatives of the RAF. If the regulars look at us and think what a mess they won’t want us wearing their uniform and they could rightly question our ability to lead (by example) our Cadets.

It is hard work and it is time consuming working a full time job and being an active member of the ACO that goes for all staff though VRT, (A)NCO CIs as well as Service Instructors.

Is nowhere near my primary motivation for being part of the organisation but I appreciate having my commission, being an officer, wearing my uniform. I think it does make it all feel a bit more special on both a personal and organisational level having the connection between the ACO & the RAF. So to go back to the original question I would be disappointed if my commission was downgraded, but it is not something I would pack it in over.

[quote=“ex-bawtryboy” post=8937]
I’d actually quite like to see a regular officer come and run a cadet squadron for 6 months. I wonder how much hair they’d have left, and how many staff and cadets they’d have? On the other hand, I wouldn’t even consider going to run a regular or reserve squadron (I won’t even run an ATC squadron, I’m no mug), although I suspect that I might fare better than the regular coming to run an ATC squadron.[/quote]

I am a Squadron OC and my predecessor was regular RAF, he was OC for 9 years.

First thing to point out is he stepped up to do the job and second he did it well. I won’t comment on his hair :wink:

All of our OC’s have been ex reg officers up until the 50’s apart from the latest who is ex reg guardsman but from what I can tell all have done a great job most still have hair which is more than I can say for me!

[quote=“ex-bawtryboy” post=8937]
You draw some interesting parallells there - all rubbish, but interesting none the less.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I think you’ve missed my point completely and continued with the ‘we’re different because we’re volunteers and work with young people’ mantra. You’ve also shown that you don’t really understand what our Regular and Reserve colleagues do these days.

If you read my post, I said I was talking about ‘Service’ in the round, Regulars and Reserves serve in their way, we serve in ours, but what we do isn’t special, it’s just a different way of serving. Perhaps I should have said that any and all ‘service’ is special? You also miss the point of my examples and your comments on who is being commanded etc are, I feel, irrelevant. Everybody in the military is a volunteer last time I looked, so lets bin that argument; everyone in the military does long days and its a fact of life that officers will invariably have additional work as well, be it Reservist officer service on top of a day job (with Flt admin tasks or Sqn duties) or Regular officer service of 11+ hour duty days and then personnel or other admin or secondary/additional duties to fulfil in their off duty time. So remember that your 16-hour Sqn day is easily matched by others wearing blue suits, Regulars and Reserves!

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=8933]I think we should be seeking people for COMMISSIONS full stop; the qualities required should be the same regardless of where you serve. But I totally agree that the ROIT is a hurdle, so are the additional weekends; and so they should be! If you want the commission, then you’ll do the extra work, otherwise settle for a lower appointment or do something else! And frankly, we absolutely should care what Regulars/Reserves think, at the moment, most of them think we’re a bunch of whining, scruffy, unfit to**ers and in a lot of cases, we are; we need to change that perception.

The VR(T) needs to stop believing it’s a ‘special case’ and stop bleating that it’s such a hard thing balancing work and cadet commitments such that nobody else could do it.[/quote]
If we were to seek people for commissions (by which I assume you mean people apply from outside the Corps specifically to be officers and let’s say the ROIT on top, what is the draw / attraction at the end of the day? Given that it is still volunteering in a youth organisation.

A two tier system would be interesting in terms of authority. Would they have the same authority and if you were on the lower rung, what’s to stop you saying no, if asked to do something that was on the higher rung’s TOR/TOS and not yours?

I don’t think for one minute no one else could do it, but where’s the queue? Maybe if the regulars think that, they should come and show us how it’s done. I know ex-regulars who have found it difficult as they pushed hard and people walked away or transferred, because it is a hobby.

As Ex BB says we have to manage three very different groups, he left out CWCs who can be worse than teenagers at times, whereas the regulars/reserves only have adults and adults that are being paid in some way to be there. What can you realistically do if a member of staff or cadet doesn’t turn up when you expect … threaten them with being kicked out of a hobby group. Big deal. Who’s the loser in the short and medium term, certainly not the one being kicked out.

I wonder how many staff have “secondary duties” at work and do other voluntary things in their spare time. I do on both counts. So don’t try some sob story about our erstwhile colleagues working strife, as many of us are already there.