Is there an ongoing re-organisation of Wing structures by HQAC and RCs. A wing I know is moving to having 6 sectors for 28 Squadrons each with a Squadron Leader in charge plus 10 Specialist Flight Lieutenants with a hope to have them in the future as Squadron Leaders.
With the difficulty in recruiting staff both as CIs and uniform posts, why is there an apparant increase in the number of OF 2s and 3s at Wing Level whensquadrons are in great difficulty as stated in recruiting staff.
6 Sectors have been the establishment for 2-3 years, but not every Wing will have 6, we have 4 sectors in our Wing that donāt work
Current Establishment for Wing
The following (rank-ranging) paid posts are established on Wings:
Wg Cdr ā OC Wg
Sqn Ldr ā Dep OC Wg
Sqn Ldr x 4 ā Wg Staff Officers (WSOs) (Generic)
Sqn Ldr x 6 - Sector Commanders
Sqn Ldr - Wg Sports Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Shooting Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Trg Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Gliding Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Adv Trg Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg MCO
Sqn Ldr - Wg H&S Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg First Aid Trg Officer
Flt Lt ā Wg Fieldcraft Officer
Flt Lt ā Wg DofE Officer
Flt Lt ā Wg Radio Officer
The following are also established posts:
Wg WO (ATC)
WO (ATC) ā Music/Band
Wg Chaplain
Dep Wg Chaplain
A Wg Child Protection Advisor of any rank
Wg Chairman
Bader POC (Any rank)
In theory this can take away ~30 volunteers away from a Squadron, or at least distract from a Squadron. Each Wing is also scaled for 19 Squadron Leadersā¦ I think thatās a little top heavy unless that actually do something to make life easier for Squadrons (not seeing that locally)
Someone who isnāt a volunteer I think came up with the idea that you should have dedicated staff for areas. This works fine in the workplace, as you recruit into that role, but in the volunteer sector, one of two things happen, either someone does more and more or you take someone away from somewhere, which then impinges on everyone else. This is a result of having had two CACs who are career paper shufflers and seem to think you can āpaperworkā your way through life. Put enough forms in peopleās way and they get to the point where they canāt be bothered. This is why people donāt take advantage of the things on offer.
This system only works if you are over staffed on all squadrons. In our sector only one of 7 squadrons has enough āeffectiveā staff attending regularly to operate properly, the rest of us get by on between 3 and 4, a night if we are lucky and this means 100 or 75% staff attendance. This hasnāt stopped one being poached by Wing from one of the other 6. This staffing situation is repeated across the Wing.
The irony is before this brave new world, we, I donāt know how, did things for years and the new system hasnāt really worked. All it seems to do is massage egos of people and make them think they are more important.
All of these roles have one or two deputies, who from what I have seen, regard this role as more important than their squadron role and makes their signature block longer than some of their messages.
Unless there are currently 2 Wings undergoing the same reorganisation, I also know of the Wing that this is happening in. I doubt itās a directive from the RC or CAC, more that the new Wg Cdr is trying to put his stamp on the Wing and reorganising within the bounds of the establishment that is set. I think itās more surprising that not all of the SMEs / established posts will get the rank to which they are officially entitled, despite most of them meeting the HQAC criteria.
i note, somewhat disparingly, that if the above Wing Staff establishment was met in my Wing, there would be more officers within WHQ than there would be Officers on the Squadrons.
i vaguely remember something about lunatics and the asylumā¦
In monetary terms, I donāt think the cost will particularly high - Iād imagine there will only be a couple of Flt Lt -> Sqn Ldr promotions. From what Iāve seen thereās nothing to suggest that some of the roles canāt be shared (despite complicated organograms in the the TLA-heavy documents that have been sent out), and so, for example, perhaps the Wg Trg O might be one of the new Sector Cdrs.
Iām not trying to defend the reorganisation - just point out that itās only really some tinkering of the train set. I do agree that there will be a ācostā associated with skill sets being (potentially) lost from Sqns if staff are posted to WHQ, which I donāt agree with, and there does seem to be staffing issues in that Wg in particular.
When has any Squadron been as you put it been āoverstaffedā staff if not instructing staff can always be performing other functions and duties. What is on paper which the āpenguinsā look at does not mean that they are due to family and work commitments are available.
An ex-OC of mine many years ago questioned my commitment about 50% parade attendence, as I was working 8 on 6 off night shifts I think I was doing quite well but he was a career dole claiment who had never done a days work since he left university and has just reached pension age. At that point I walked out not to return, somebody actually pushed me out of the door as I was so angry.
Iāve never known a squadron to be overstaffed. Even as a cadet there was never more than 6 staff and never more than 4 on a parade night.
Quite a few years ago I had 9 staff 4 of whom were parent CIs. However on any one night if we had 4 it was doing well, due to work patterns.
The problems with looking at numbers on SMS is pointless, as you say it doesnāt take into account peopleās lives. This even comes down to the number of cadets. Iāve visited squadrons who boast 40, 50+ cadets, but when I visited unless itās always been one of the odd nights, where are the other half? But I know and accept the reality of the situation, which is something that again that passes Wing Staff by, ironic really when theyāve all been on squadrons. Iāve made this observation to Wing Staff and mentioned the fact that Wing Staff have cried off on scheduled visits due to work, family etc. Doesnāt go down well.
Iāve heard of the changes within the Wing and as far as Iām aware there are a couple of Sqns within it that have a third as many staff as cadets. These could be better utilised elsewhere at other Squadrons. Th unfortunate thing with the current ethos of some staff is that if they have to move then they will leave.
I have been a CO where staff worked shifts. They give as much as they can give and I was very grateful for it. If you are accommodating with them, 9 times out of 10 they will be accommodating with you, helping out on their days off when others are not available because the work Monday to Friday 9-5.
Iām not adverse to change, and from what Iāve been told, this particular Wing has need it for some time. The restructure of Wing Staff allows those who would have had no opportunity to progress previously. This would then free up a position as Sqn OC, for example, for an eager Fg Off to move in to.
However, some dont like change and will poo poo the idea.
At the end of the day we do what we do in whatever capacity for the young individuals in our care. If you are doing it for your own fortune and glory then you should move on. I would happily take the MOD90 of someone who doesnāt think the same.
What about people who already double hat? In my Sector of my Wing half of the OCās also have a Wing role of some type, would they in this system be told they had to choose between there Wing job or Squadron Command?
From where I sit there are very few Wing jobs which need to be full time the rest can be done by someone part time. (Although you might not want a Command there is no reason why you canāt be a Squadron Officer).
To me the only Wing Staff roles which require a fulltime member do staff are:
Wing Commander
Deputy Wing Commander (no reason any Sqn Ldr canāt double hat as this).
Sector Commanders
Training Officer
WWO
Shooting Officer
Adventure Training Officer
I separate the bottom 2 from the list because itās only a fulltime role if you are busy. If you are a fulltime WATTO the Wing needs to be doing AT every month, be it Wing run Staff courses like LLA or activities for the cadets. If all you are doing is advertising Windermere Courses and signing off Bader applications you should be on a Squadron. Same goes for shooting, if you are fulltime you need to be running L98 ranges at weekends and getting round Squadrons assisting in local ranges/training.
If there is something a Wing does particuarly badly then I can see a justification for making a role full time for a fixed term to get the activity running properly. An obvious example is Fieldcraft where some Wings arenāt doing it, the Wing CO could make Wing FT Officer a fulltime post for say 2 years with very prescriptive ToR to get FT running, once that done the role becomes a secondary duty again and back to Squadron you go.
I agree on some of your points. The Specialist positions could be double hatted releasing the need for Sqn Officers to leave their unit however, some roles may be more time consuming and not allow enough time to carry out both.
That would be a decision that could be made between the Wg Cdr and the individual applying for the job.
Itās not a current ethos it has always been that way. I was on squadron c.50 minute drive for 9 months and binned it as it extended my āworking dayā by 2-2Ā½ hours and doing anything at the weekend, was even less fun. So when people say if you force me to move, Iām off, I fully understand why. Not so many years ago people were not as mobile as they are now. All but one my cadet squadron staff didnāt live more than 4 miles away and the one came on the train every other week.
As a volunteer you choose where you volunteer, the clue is in the definition of volunteer . This could be next door or 20 miles away. it is disingenuous to say that people who decide not travel and leave, are somehow lesser people.
Similarly I know a lot of people me included who have refused to do Wing jobs. I donāt see myself as a Wing person for one Iām not uptight enough about the rubbish WSOs seem to get excited about. The people who go onto Wing, seem to because they donāt want to do the squadron stuff anymore, judging by the comments they come out with, around not having to do any of the squadron things, even down to parading two nights a week. There are some who go looking for it, as they think there is some kudos to it or they really detest squadron life.
Can I ask what made you go to a Sqn that was a 50min drive away in the first place? Surely you had an option rather than being told to so if you were told to you should have said no and binned it then as you so put it.
As for those wanting to move onto WSO posts maybe they want to move on to something different rather than be on a Sqn. Some WSO I know are very proactive within their respective Wings and do an excellent job. Those that do it for the wrong reasons should be in the post in the first place. In any walk of life, if you want promotion it means taking on more responsibility.
Personally Iād had enough of my WExo phoning me up demanding that I open up the Sqn for building inspections when I was at work and questioning everything I did. It was borderline B&H so I made the decision to move on.
The role I now do means I do a 60 mile round trip. No Iām not involved directly with cadets nor am I on an ATC unit but I still feel my role is just as important. Would I throw in the towel if we were relocated? Probably not. I think itās quite a selfish way of looking at things. Itās up to the individual what they consider a long distance to travel. Some may say 5 miles is too much if they havenāt a car but some may be willing to travel 30 miles (my first command was a 36mile round trip).
Saw in a whatsapp group today, that one wing has announced today they are adopting a new model of the Sector Commander effectivley becoming a Sqn Cdr of 3 or 4 flights (aka current Sqns). Each sector will have 2 new primary posts of Adjutant and SWO. This makes the current batch of Sqn Cdrs effectivley Flt Cdrs now.
Sounds alot like the ACF model to me, i do wonder who signed this off though.
That was the way Sectors was always seen to work if you spoke to anyone from HQAC when they were brought in. Itās just never happened that way as it didnāt fit with the way people are used to working or with the financial structure of the organisation.
