I’ve been out of the system for a decade and obviously with the ‘pause’ in gliding and the restructure with 2FTS everything has changed. I’m rejoining a VGS and since the old CGI role is being phased out I am having to join as a SNCO. Part of this long process involves an interview at 2FTS and I’m looking for some guidance as to what that might look like. Any advice on what I should know/where I should look etc would be greatly appreciated.
your guess is as good as mine.
the role of a VGS SNCO is new to me (although I know some VGS did operate with SNCOs).
if the new rank slide posters are to be believed we’re having SNCOs (Aircrew) which are assigned to VGS…this i presume it the role you have applied for.
It is news to me that a 2FTS interview is required and wait with interest at any other replied after mine that can answer your question…!
It’s all new to me too Steve. I have had to fill out form upon form, sit an online theory driving test, go to Cranwell for my F/MT600, see my GP before attending the RMC for a medical, get two referees to vouch for me, fill out health questionnaires, read and sign for countless regulatory documents… I’ll be too old to fly by the time the process is complete
Most of those activities are nothing to do with the application for SNCO and would have been required as a CGI anyway.
The interview is standard RAF knowledge, current affairs, NATO, ACO knowledge, bit about you and your past, 2fts organisation what you’d bring to the role etc.
Those that have passed have managed with only some light revision.
More faff, for faff’'s sake. RAF knowledge = superfluous. Current affairs = superfluous. NATO, ACO knowledge = superfluous; 2FTS organisation = no comment!
Should focus on why you want to be part of VGS; what is your motivation? What can you offer? What will be your commitment?
To be fair, it’s not that different from the interviews for being and NCO within the ATC.
Is that process fit for purpose, you say similar about the selection at officers at Wing level prior to OASC.
Almost like they use the same pre printed sheet
If, as has been briefed to the Corps by various senior officers, that we’re not part of the RAF and never have been; never had a war role (in recent history), then why do they regard knowledge of the RAF and NATO as important?
What is it about current affairs that would make one a better pilot\instructor? Surely its about ability. Ability to fly, enthusiasm, and reliability.
If I went for an interview and was asked what I knew about 2FTS ‘organisation’, i would answer; ‘the same as everyone else employed in it - Sweet FA - because there isnt any!’
to offer a devil advocates reply and i suspect that of “the man”
as one is seen to be wearing a “military uniform” there are expectation on what could be classed as “minimal military knowledge” - which would include understanding the role and structure in the wider national/international community the RAF/NATO sits and with that an interest in current affair and how they may affect the stance of the RAF/NATO
the argument to that is we’re CFAVs and wear a CFAV uniform, we can indicate a minimal understanding of the organisation, its structure and position in society; however Joe Bloggs on the street can’t distinguish between CFAV and full time/reserve regular forces due to the minor differences in uniform.
Hey, at least there’s consistency! Look at the positive, it’s the same requirements for NCOs in both streams.
that has to be praised…
perhaps SNCOs and ruperts will be the same one day…?
…ah, & the VGS “multi-role” gliders fit in where?
The VGS / background / tasking / attributes / motivational aspects have zero validity to the RAF/NATO picture - unless you refer to the - failed - planning application for glider repairs, where the one of the stated reasons was:
“Such a contract is of utmost importance to national security and the training of RAF pilot recruits to defend this nation needs to be given priority over relatively minor AONB concerns.”
I suspect, more likely, that as the RAF (and Army in the case of CCF/ACF) provide the uniform/training/pay/MOD90s/buildings/ammunition/aircraft/weapons (etc and so forth), that they can set whatever they wish to in the interview criteria. It is their budget so they set the rules and all that.
Quite possibly, but setting rules & being relevant to the requirement are 2 very different matters…
Might point being is we are putting too much thought into it. In ‘our’ view it might not meet the requirements all day long but they pay they get to decide. Whether that is right is something else!
True, but by trying to have a “one fits all” interview situation, it shows lack of appreciation for what they are trying to achieve. Commercial organisations apply the appropriate filters for the appropriate candidates to be selected for the appropriate position. These filters are varied depending on the circumstances.
The interview / selection process needs to focus (very closely) purely on VGS aspects. Candidate “A” may have excellent knowledge of RAF / NATO & could draw up the complete ORBAT in their sleep, but just has a lukewarm interest in gliding, seems like a opportunity to occasionally fill in some spare time. Candidate “B” might not have a clue about such aspects but is a “TAP” (Total Aviation Person) who just wants to be involved in gliding, as much as possible, & transfer their energy / motivation towards cadets doing the same.