Yeah, I have similar experiences, including a FS OIC in the nearest unit to me. Despite being an ex RAF SNCO (spent time as an instructor at Cosford), add having run his unit successfully for 5 years, he failed the board. The only reason he went for the commission was because he was told that SNCOs shouldn’t be running units… I think that was when I lost confidence in the boarding system being useful.
4 Likes
I think the problem we have with the board for commissioning in particular at the moment is that we are required to use the standard format questions for an RAF Officer filter interview. It’s a set bank of questions from which we are not supposed to deviate.
That asks all sorts of lifestyle questions (with a view to assessing the person’s ability to commit the ‘required’ time and effort), education questions (which aren’t really particularly relevant to us); but very little of what we might actually want to know about a candidate.
Fine for the RAF as the very first step along an extended path of assessment and training but probably not very applicable to finding the right people to appoint and use as officers for our purposes.
So we’re potentially throwing away perfectly useable candidates before we even had a chance to train them properly.
4 Likes
I totally agree with that. The trouble is, we’re not allowed to ask questions like “Are you sexually attracted to minors?”, and “Is there any chance you will steal unit funds to furnish your gambling addiction?”.
3 Likes
Bizarrely we don’t even seem to ask questions like “What made you consider the RAFAC?” or “What are your aspirations for your time in the Corps?”
2 Likes
Fairly sure I got asked something similar to those questions at my board, but it was a while ago now.
My personal stumbling block has been getting to OASC. Partly due to bad memories from an attempt at a regular commission that made my self-esteem hot rock bottom for a few years and partly due to an inability to get our E2 to give me any sort of warning that she’s booked me onto a board.
If we’re discussing appointing without a board or we also doing away with OASC?
And why don’t SNCO candidates have to go to OASC? Regular direct entry SNCOs do…
But, I fear we may be straying from the topic.
I would. In a post VR(T) world, I see no place for it.
I’d like to see outside applicants in uniform as soon as as their BPSS and DBS clearances hit Wing, and they’ve completed the AVIP. And internal candidates appointed by return of email.
We could then provide e-learning packages for the majority of “need to know” stuff - the RAF, the ATC/CCF, MOI, drill, and the ACTO 99 stuff. Once that’s completed, book a slot on a combined OIC/SSIC, and provided you pass, you lose your acting status, and get your scroll.
2 Likes
I got asked them in my bird a few years ago.
I keep getting asked to go for officer but no one has given me a good reason as to why I should. Especially when I’m happy as a SNCO.
I got asked those in my extremely deficient CCF commissioning interview. In fact I’d say 90% of the questions were cadet specific (or how my background would assist cadets) rather than RAF specific.
1 Like
I am hearing a lot of this recently, especially since the CFC came in. There are very few things now that an officer can do an SNCO can’t, especially if that SNCO makes it to WO.
Is there actually anything that your SNCOs can’t do compared to officers? Other than stay in the officers mess obviously.
Certain countersigning officer bits still have to be an officer I believe. Such as part 3 on the 1771.
Don’t do any of that here, all done by the WEXO, the inventory is held by them too as a Wing one and all Sqn Inventories were closed a few years ago
Ay, and a lot of squadrons have SNCO IC anyway, so has to be done at Wing HQ. Does raise the question why they are signing it though as it’s meant to be the check that you’ve actually been doing the activities that you’re claiming for. “who is senior to the claimant, authorised iaw ACP 300 and has personal knowledge of the duties performed to which the claim relates”
I think the issue will be ACP300 which gives a list of suitable people, and IIRC we aren’t the right grade? Maybe? Something like that anyway.
My employer does!
It was cleared by the safety manager, and I’ve had a poke around on the HSE website, and couldn’t find any minimum qualifications? It just states it should be appropriate to your workplace.
Page 20 of this doc goes into some detail on what proper training is according to HSE
Another key point in that document is:
- Where an alternative qualification is identified in place of FAW/EFAW in an
employer’s needs assessment, the employer will need to seek assurance that the
standard of training received and the competence of the organisation which
delivered this training meet the necessary criteria as outlined in our guidance.
This also references this document:
1 Like
I’m being picky here but these are not pass/fail courses.
They offer (some) instruction, some of which is practised and “assessed” but the outcome just indicates how close to the expected performance the candidate reaches…
I accept though that those with RFI can then be trained further but its in a Wing’s/everyone’s interest to not appoint candidates of a low standard
They are, people get sent home during the week, they haven’t passed the course.
Well yeah ok…there is that. How often does that occur though?
In those cases I’d see the failure being a Wing issue rather than the candidate
But that is more “incomplete course” than have “failed”…or at least “failed due to not completing”
My point i was making is: these are not designed as"pass/fail" courses.
That is not the intent. Reaching the end of the course with a fist full of “RFI” should not be seen as a “pass” but equally not as a “fail” either, but as “course completed”
They’re attendance courses done once…people who do leave with RFIs are not asked to return after some training to be reassessed.