Either… this person is doing the job at least passably, or they are (by opinion) terrible while better candidates are available.
In the case of the former, who cares what this person’s day job is if they’re doing well enough?
In the case of the latter, who cares what this person’s day job is if the issue is one of performance, and therefore discipline, which should be addressed through the proper channels?
You don’t make comment on how well this SI performs said role?
If he/she performs and gets the job done, what is the issue?
I personally would not be comfortable complaining about an SI doing a job really well just because they are taking the job of an CFAV. It just doesn’t sit right. Fair enough if they aren’t, but if they weren’t then I doubt they’d be in that position in the first place.
My understanding is that they do get to claim activities as a duty, so there’s a degree of swings and roundabouts.
This talk of getting locked up is a little extreme. There’s only a few specialists I know who could be held responsible as SMEs for any major incidents (without being in overall control/responsibility for the planning or supervision). However, there are civilian jobs that could equally put you into those positions.
Surely it should depend on the individual and the skill set? If there is a SAC with shed loads of AT qualifications why shouldn’t they be the Wing AT Officer? Conversely just because an SI is a Sqn Ldr they shouldn’t automatically get put on Wing Staff by virtue of their rank alone.
Could this be a wing trying to show a financial saving?
The SI cannot claim, but is holding a wing staff post.
My view is that SI’s are similar to supernumerary posts. They give the opportunity to have extra staff on a unit establishment.
The post should be filled by a CFAV and the SI as the post holders assistant/no2 purely for administration purposes? Who takes the lead in that post is a local management issue. This way CFAV are still given the opportunity to apply for the post?