Perhaps the OP has more info as to whether or not…?
What financial saving?
CFAV are not employees so do not attract employee costs.
if entitled CFAV don’t claim, I doubt anyone checks to see if people are claiming or not and attributing it to Wings.
Does an SI have a cost attributed to their Wing by their parent service? Although this would show the Wing accruing a cost.
A service instructor can not claim VA or HtD as far as I’m aware. If you put a SI in a CFAV established post there’s your saving…
At the most that would be £3K if they could do all their days and had a substantial HTD.
But who are these Wings getting brownie points from exactly, given that Wings don’t have a budget for HTD or VA, we just dip into a central pot, until the money’s gone.
Get real. Why not have someone who knows what they’re doing in a role where they can seriously benefit the cadets? Be that SI or RAFAC.
Personal opinion is that the person is not doing the role to its full potential as he is not an SME. There are far more SMEs within the CFAV pool with relevent skills to do the role, and be more involved.
But thats my personal opinion.
But did those SMEs apply for the post? Was their CV/letter of application up to scratch? Did they interview well?
If they didnt, why not? If they didnt hear about it, then it’s an internal comms issue - be it at Sqn, Wg or Rg level. If they didnt apply in time or interview well - or simply didnt score as highly at interview - then there’s not much more to be said!!!
One thing is for sure, the increased open competition for Wg and Rg posts is shaking the tree a bit. People have upped their games and being held more accountable than previous years. It’s certainly- in some areas - having a greater impact on cadet training. The ones in my line management chain (both CFAVs and SIs) for my niche activity are definitely far better “enablers” and “facilitators” than the last few batches.
So, does it matter if they are an SI? If their WgKing or RC feels they are the best person for the job out of the many (or few) that applied, then it’s their call. If they are rubbish, they should be held to account. If they arent going in the direction you want, or feel they are missing a trick, engage them in conversation and discussion, open that dialogue and be that critical friend.
I just hope that if they turn out to be brilliant, then you’d be giving them a pat on the back for a job well done?
2 Likes
I’ve not said anything about that the point was relating to some mythical cost saving and a Wing getting a pat on the back.
This would imply that someone within HQAC knows of cares who is doing what and where.
Our experience since the application process few apply and they are the brown nosers and wannabes, so good or bad unless the system is going to be shown to be broken, they have to go with the applicant. Note singular as we all know we all know who the favoured sons and daughters / cronies are, so applying is a pointless act, in something that is so inconsequential to your real life.
1 Like
I don’t believe they were interviewed for the post. Just appointed…
Standard for my wing.
Appointment to WSO is more akin to a cabinet reshuffle than ensuring the best person for the job is in role…
It doesn’t really bother me - I’m happy being on a squadron, as I think that is where I can put the most back.
1 Like
Yes. Right person, right job.
Are you in my wing? 
I am seeing a lot more people around the corps now who are desperate to be involved in a “Wing Team”, they seem to think they are a cut above the rest of us.
I saw recently a newly qualified LLA try and tell an experienced ML & Assessor what to do because they were “Part of the Wing DofE Team” and knew better. Words were get back in box or go home, you are an idiot.
3 Likes
There has always been that type of person in this organisation, never interested in doing anything but getting into a WSO position then doing very little.
2 Likes
This has an air of “I didn’t get the thing I wanted so now I’ll complain” about it. It might not be that but it does sound a bit like sour grapes.
4 Likes
No point complaining on here now us there.
Was a question for everyone to discuss.
Which they are doing. Is that not what this forum is for?
Can you tell Teflon please?
3 Likes
There are just so many Squadron Dodgers in the various Wing Staff around the country. Usually failed at Sqn and found it too difficult so then got themselves put in a ‘position’ so that they will stay in the Corps.
3 Likes
Wasn’t really a question was it? So much as you being the metaphorical RAFAC equivalent of someone running round shouting “English jobs for English people” - (and no I’m not accusing you of being a racist), merely drawing a comparison with you saying that volunteer roles should be for the ‘right type of volunteers’, i.e. Not Service Instructors who volunteer their time like the rest of us, but instead non-military volunteers who volunteer their time.
Whether or not the person is any good in their role is almost immaterial - your point about whether Service Instructors should hold the role was your main point, to which the answer is simply yes, a volunteer is a volunteer, just because they came through a slightly different route doesn’t make them any less suitable for the role.
8 Likes
Having an SI on the books can really help grease the wheels in the MOD. I have seen good ones make issues disappear like magic with a text or a phone call to an old mate or someone in a section that they know.
I would honestly prefer some positive discrimination in some roles. If a wing has a half decent SI on the books then get them in a post that can actually make a difference and make things happen. We have too many Volunteers in our organisation who make us look like idiots.
8 Likes