If doing this hopefully they provide a fairly easy transition from cadet to Adult Cpl. Almost the same as to staff cadet. Potentially then have a more in depth selection, as now, for SNCO
Slightly off topic, but why do adult ranks start at Sgt? I’ve often wondered this but never thought of asking.
Because it is better than starting at AWO and we can still put all the non-commissioned staff in the Sgts Mess.
Have one rank CFAV and they can all go into Sgts mess.
Always figured it was uncontroversial access to the Mess. CIs get a free pass as they aren’t in uniform, but 2 stripes would raise eyebrows.
Ah, makes sense.
It’s not how management works.
Now we have FTRS they need to prove their worth and they don’t that by leaving things alone. I couldn’t imagine any CAC or RC or other bod into a HQAC role, coming in and just saying all’s fine, especially as we’re due a new CAC you can see more change for the sake of it.
Plus why would they need 5/10 year “strategies”, every 2 or 3.
Good to know you’ve found it easy to find something new and the ease with which it is to do it.
I’ve been volunteering in other places for many years and mostly it’s just turn up and crack on, as people really appreciate you wanting to help. The most I’ve had to do is a DBS and online CP.
These are WOs they wouldn’t have thought that far ahead.
I agree to a point…my resistance is there is still a noticeable difference in appointment.
One has a selection of boards/interviews the other completed an RAF selection course
Relinquishing the RAF connection for our Officers while creating it elsewhere [quote=“AlexCorbin, post:68, topic:5478”]
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.
This puts me off greatly.
We see SNCOs aiming for promotion and pick up qualifications along the route to tick boxes.
How many of those CFAVs continue to use those qualifications in the long term?
Thinking about myself since my time as a CFAV I have two qualifications I achieved which I’ve let lapse having barely used them
With added steps/ranks comes the risk of more to do for the CFAV to justify promotion. And potentially a CFAV picking up more qualifications a long the way not a bad thing per se however there will be many who will do it just to tick a box with little intention to use the qualification.
It will create a demand for places on courses abd block those who genuinely want to use a qualification or gain an experience from doing so.
None of which has any direct Cadet Benefit
I wouldn’t mind so much if the route to promotion was thought through from the bottom up thus every FS will have the same minimum quals and experiences, as will a WO, Plt Off etc leading to all Fly Lts/OCs having all the experience and qualifications to offer a well rounded knowledge base
But that won’t happen as not everyone will want to start at the bottom. Some will see the 12+year minimum route to OC as too long. Those coming in with experience (ex regular forces) is not recognised.
I’m not necessary against adding ranks but the criteria and eligibility for promotion needs to be realistic
Teflon, you’ve just lost all credibility in this debate:
Oh Teflon… That comment really hasn’t aged well now you’ve made a hypocrite of yourself. You even admitted to being a WO in the past!
I’m sure you can do better than this.
Would you like to take this opportunity to admit that you were wrong about bosses/managers “not wearing special badges or clothes”? Or are you deliberately avoiding anything that doesn’t fit or disproves your argument.
I’m sure we can debate without belittling each other’s roles and commitment to the organisation.
Our bosses don’t have badges or wear special clothes. The engineering manager looks like every other engineer and the ‘office’ managers look like all the other office workers.
The ones in shops etc are for the public to know who to moan at, as bloke who was Homeware manager in a local Tesco told me.
If in this notion of a single adult uniform stream you wanted a badge to say who was what fine, but it doesn’t need a rank, which is where as I say the limiting preconceptions about Officers and SNCOs and who can do what comes from. Personally I’m not bothered about badges and my rank is now even more meaningless outside the Air Cadet world and is there as the people in charge would I imagine self-combust if we didn’t have ranks.
The rank you hold doesn’t imply any real seniority (you could be a in rank for x years while someone else scoots through) or ability, but is a veritable glass ceiling and mill stone as it stops people doing things as rank system is a limiting factor, due to outmoded thinking.
As for my comment regarding the RWOs, as a former WO, I was totally appalled by the childish nature and if I’m honest low education standards of many of my counterparts, which prevented proper thought and consideration. I got on far better with the old stagers than my contemporaries, as at least the conversations were adult ones and not just about mainly slagging off Officers. There is still this within the SNCO cadre.
So the RWOs may have had the idea, as that’s about the only place their controlling mindset could go, but they wouldn’t (I stand to be corrected) have considered anything else, like accommodation on an annual camp. The idea of junior ranked adult uniform is just about control, nothing else, ie you’re in a uniform and I’m senior to you and I’ve told you to do it, purely because of the rank structure. This is why a lot of people don’t like CIs, as they don’t have any control over them.
There is a lot of BS about development, but you can develop anyway, you don’t need a uniform to do that.
Perhaps we are looking at this issue the wrong way?
The RAF is a full time military organisation that, while it operates on a day to day basis on a collegiate cross ranks basi , is overlaid with a command and control system enshrined within military law.
The RAFAC is a military sponsored youth development group with adults giving up their spare time in a variety of roles CI, SNCO, officer, Civ Com, to provide development opportunities for young people. The different roles enable individuals to decide who much of a commitment they wish to make in terms of time, skills knowledge and responsibility but they should all be part of one team, with no differentiation, behind closed doors.
The concept of promotion with superior/subordinate roles may be relevant for he RAF but , for me, is totally irrelevant for the RAFAC.
The existing structures should remain as they allow the RAFAC to deliver for cadets BUT that should be their only use.
Are you new here?
I’ve had a previous account some time ago but wanted to get back involved since I’m sitting OASC in the coming months.
I take it belittling isn’t a new thing here?
And in a business the staff all know each other. In our organisation they might not. We can go away as a CFAV and be as clueless about who’s who as a MOP in a shop.
Which you, yourself, hold. So I’m confused about what you’re trying to achieve here.
Seniority, sometimes but not always. It does lend itself to the hierarchical responsibility that certain roles or positions hold, though. Outmoded thinking - you could be onto something, but that requires a culture shift, not a complete overhaul of the system.
As a WO, you were responsible for the development and conduct of your NCO peers. Sounds like you didn’t do your job.
So a rank doesn’t indicate someone’s ability to perform the role, but their academic skills do? Do you actually ever read what you type and ask yourself if you’re being outrageous or bigoted?
So you’ve had a conversation with every NCO have you? Have you spoken to ANY? You seem to have a disdain for anyone you consider positionally or educationally inferior and you spend a lot of time negging on the entire SNCO cadre. There are officers who make remarks and complaints about NCOs, there are “old stagers” who complain about those younger, and there are younger members of the organisation who complain about some of the older ones. Since you’re a fan of anecdotal evidence, the reference to the rank or age is usually second to that person doing or saying something they shouldn’t have (or not doing something they should have). It doesn’t indicate a genuine prejudice - certainly not on the level that you clearly hold.
I know of very few people who genuinely don’t value the input and support of CIs. Again, where this is a problem, we require a culture shift, not necessarily to rip apart a key tenet of our identity.
Again, YOUR preconceptions and biases are colouring what you say. You are assuming that because of the rank they hold that they wouldn’t have done or considered certain aspects (which they might have). You espouse what you claim to fight against. However, if they hadn’t thought about those things in any detail I wouldn’t blame them, and I don’t expect a similar conference of any other cadre would have the opportunity to do any different. For starters, there’s the time constraint. Secondly, there’s a lack of immediate access to the necessary information to design such policy or critically assess feasibility. Third, it’s not the remit of those gathered (and wouldn’t be under any other uniform/rank system). Fourth, this is no different to any other management network in any other national organisation comping together to discuss problems and suggestions which are then pushed up the chain for consideration by whatever policy design committee might exist. This is no different to a cadet NCO team coming up with an idea and suggesting it to staff - they have neither the resources nor the insight into the inner/higher workings to fully form the solution.
So the cadet NCO structure doesn’t allow for development by allowing a gradual increase in roles and responsibilities either then? Would you advocate scrapping that too?
And in most places you go, “we’re all in the same boat”. First names, no ranks, SMEs get the authoritative voice…until a cadet walks in.
I wouldn’t call it totally irrelevant, and where rank becomes an irrelevance is on activities (such as FT, AT, shooting) where the activity’s hierarchy will be based on skills, quals, and experience, and willing. For parade nights and the general running of camps, the rank structure works. It SHOULD work, however, out of a mutual respect for the individual, their skills, and the role they signed up for.
However, the idea of skewing or spoiling the staff levels and make-up of 2 squadrons (to move an officer, against the wishes of both the losing OC and the officer in question), instead of just having the workings of one interrupted (and potentially not to its detriment) is incredibly backward. As I said, there’s a culture and attitude shift needed - and it’s not at the front line.
Going back to before things got a bit wayward, there was a discussion about OASC. I think we should scrap it, standardise a Pre Uniformed Service Course, to include:
*Icebreaker and ambitions
*Expected Roles and Responsibilities of the 2 streams
*The realities of and potential for role creep and overlap
*instructional skills period
*performing and commanding drill
*Leadership skills assessment
*Discussion about their chosen cadre, does it suit them and their ambitions, have they changed their mind
*Other suggestions welcome
All uniformed CFAV should be able to competently lead a lesson, prepare uniform, perform drill, and display some basic leadership qualities - regardless of the cadre they wish to join (“Is this person what we’re looking for in a uniformed CFAV”). They should pass this before Wing Interview. If they pass the interview (“is this person what we’re looking for in their chosen cadre”), they should be given a mentor to guide them pre ATF and beyond.
Who does not like CIs? I have been one for 3 years now. On my unit there is approximately 7 of us. I have never encountered any negative attitude toward me, and this is definitely not just because I hold an executive position on my squadron.
My CO is always grateful for everything us CIs do. This also applies to 2 other COs I have worked alongside.
Ohhhh I have an idea who…
I’m going to suggest that there are very few companies with 10,000+ employees that don’t have some system of employee grades - and they probably don’t have the added complication of throwing together a group of them for a few days or a week or two.
You’re constantly pointing out that we’re not the RAF, which is true - but we’re also not a 9-5 working SME either.