in my work it is the oldest person - not necessarily the case at a ATC unit.
at our Squadron the OC is one of the youngest,
at my previous Squadron the OC was also younger than me
at the own before that I was only a year younger than OC
our specific USP is aviation certainly
but there are more differences between the Scouts, St John’s, or local youth group and the RAFAC than which group goes flying.
another “unique” element of the RAFAC is the military link of the organisation (shared somewhat but with a different flavour with the ACF)
I was a Scout at the same time I was a ATC recruit. part of the many appeals was the military aspect of the Cadets why i left the Scouts.
if we lose ranks and de-militarise the uniform we lose the identity if the organisation and are steps closer to the Air Scouts
Of course the elephant within the room is the fact that the organisation makes the joining process so onerous and long winded that it puts loads of people off.In my experience you d have someone walk through the door.Id interview them and sell them the “organisation” said person would then be dead keen.Then of course you say fill this, this ,this, this and this in.Bring it all back it then gets sent away(some of it may get “lost”) in which case you have to fill it in again.Then you have be interviewed again(pointless).
Then you wait and wait.It could be argued that this process means we get people who really want to be in the organisation.Err actually it does not the organisation must lose boatloads of really decent people every year because of the god awful system that is in place.
Seen lots of comments saying that having one strand will be like the Scouts or St John Ambulance (They get wound up with everyone adding the ‘s!). Both organisations have rank or position structures, both covering their young people and their staff, so I can’t understand why people are saying a single strand would make us like them.
Not that I agree with the proposal at all. This pattern of two strands of people in an organisation, the leaders and led, has been used before within the Communist utopia that was the People’s Liberation Army in China. They realised it didn’t work and returned to a rank structure!!
Some one has to be in charge and make decisions! A rank structure based on selection, experience and job role seems the only sensible system.
Unless someone can suggest a system that bucks thousands of years of using ranks?
I think the argument people are making is in favour of a rank structure, but opposed to two.
So instead of having an NCO structure and an Officer structure - with all the inherent rivalries and one upmanship that the ATC has somehow inherited - you have a single adult cadre.
But surely with everyone being part of RAFAC rather than VR(T) and ATC, that has brought everyone closer. There is clear progression from Sgt upwards to Officer Ranks. Some roles are NCO specific and some are Officer specific. There is nothing to stop an NCO leading at any level, especially when they are the SME, but everyone has managers and that is more of the role that (some) officers take.
It is an interesting debate, but surely no one would want the massive upheaval such a system would entail so quickly after all the other recent upheavals
I think having one cadre would lead to a top heavy rank structure. Everyone wanting to be the top dog in the same boat.
It doesn’t work in the military, so why would it work in a military themed organisation?
Current system works, aside from the lack of volunteers. No need to re-invent the wheel. Especially as @LeatherWorker said, we’re all under the one banner of RAFAC now anyway.
For the record, I’m neither agreeing with them nor advocating that approach.
There’s a reason the two strands exist and it does work, I tend to use the analogy of the difference between tactical (NCOs) and strategic (officers) thinking.
I think we should organise the NCO Cadre differently.
I think cadet service should end at the age of 18 in line with the other cadet orgs. I think we should intoroduce a couple more ranks into rank structure (SAC for 2 years then Cpl for 2 or 4 years). The reason for this is that at 29 years old and a warrant officer thats as far as i can go for now until the day i call it a day…and i have no intention on going comissioned. Those extra ranks will just pro long the progression keeping CFAV engaged in developing themselves …yes i know some if not many will think thats more hoops to jump through.
I think there should then be a HQAC application and assessment method for SNCO roles as in theory they should be a management role within a sqn or wing similar to officers…in theory that is. So would you want the SNCO population of the same “calibre”
Now thats my thoughts…time to get shreaded for my opinions
@1993 makes a valid point about the application processes we have and how onerous they are; one for CI, one for SNCO and one for Commission, none of which apart from the CI one actually mean anything. The others are solely meaningless administrative processes.
With one uniform stream you would apply for and join as a CI and then for uniform if you wanted. The latter isn’t with any particularly pre-set role(s) in mind, it is just to go into uniform. Once in uniform it’s up to the individual to decide what happens next, as opposed to being a SNCO which has its preconceptions and Commission which has its preconceptions. I know a few WOs and I was one, who saw that SNCO was a dead end street and even now get to WO in 8-10 years and stop unless you are well into drill and see that as your raison d’être for the next 10, 20, 30+ years. The only option is to commission which what me and at least a dozen WOs did. Ironically I bumped into a bloke who is a FS on another sqn in town this morning, he was saying he’s done long enough and enough things to be eligible for WO and completed the matrix. His OC has said he’ll recommend him and so will his WSO, although he still has to do a Wing board. But he said he’s not really convinced he can see the benefit to him personally, as what can he do as a WO, it’s the top of pile and nowhere to go as he’s not excited by drill. He said he doesn’t want to commission as it just looks like more aggro. He’s in a real quandary and he said his wife has told him to jack it all in and do something else if he wants.
I’m sure I’ll be corrected but in the Police and school everyone starts at the bottom, although as I understand it the Police have a fast track scheme. There is no one joining as an “Officer” or “OR” and there is nothing really assumed about the “role” you will play initially, as there is in the armed forces, and it seems to work and worked for some time. The people who want to do more, do, and those happy enough don’t go for “greatness”. I’ve known many who joined the Police and retired as PCs not wanting promotion and similarly with teachers.
@Valiant How many do you see in this log jam wanting to be top dog now?
Sqn Cdr is ‘top dog’ on the sqn, and in many ways is like a week old fresh cream cake … you can’t give it away. If a single stream did mean more people wanting it, can a bit of competition be a bad thing? For a few years we’ve had OC and WSO put up to be applied for each time there have been one apply, two if they’re lucky as people see them for what they are poison chalices. We were away on a DofE when there were 2 OCs in the offing and 4 Flt Lts and 2 Fg Offs with nearly 200 combined years, were not at all interested. Not surprisingly the ones that do apply are those who people have thought would get it anyway, especially the WSO ones.
But the applications have pre-requisites in terms of rank / seniority, so limiting the applicant field, remove the rank and just have seniority / experience as per a one stream and if it opens it up to more people, can that be a bad thing? Plus if it’s just a job title and no rank, people in all probability would see it as do it for a couple of years and pass the baton, rather than sit there long after the excitement has passed, purely as to get rid of it you effectively have to leave the organisation.
)