WO appointment Scroll

[AlexCorbin]

Long term thinking though.

I genuinely do think its known and was raised as a concern by the RAF when T&Ls were talked about

[steve679]

@wdimagineer2b

“Attended AEF” - What relevance does this have? If someone is a cracking candidate for FS who cares whether they’ve sat in the crew room supervising the cadets for 8 hours?

“Attended a blues camp” - Were they any good? No they were utter sh1 and actually made the week harder than it should have been… But they “attended” so they get a tick in the box…

“Attended a greens camp” - Who gives a toss? If they are a DI, for example, and would make a great Sector WO why should it matter if “greens” is not their sphere?

this - this - a thousand times this

I have seen on nominations in the notes section “required for promotion matrix” - marked in there as if they will be picked for a camp, exercise or other event because they need a tick box exercise.

one individual who attended a greens exercise, was assigned a flight to follow, but that was too much hard work and so sat in the safety vehicle (minibus) the whole weekend.
they claimed their F80 for that and then got a tick box…

while a young(service rather than age), enthusiastic, fully engaged and involved Sgt who has their head screwed on, is a true role model to the Cadets and Staff alike and would make a cracking WO in time, gets no more recognition for the effort put in, and is £10/day less rewarded via the F80!

I really hope the director/participant pay divide comes in and with this, the matrix boxes slide towards the director level so even if it is just attended once, it was a 100% effort put in

[wdimagineer2b]

I once had a young CI on camp with me. This person had been knocked back from their Sgts board (“lack of life experience” or something like that). They were FAR more useful than the existing Sgt who was there (and who was applying for promotion to FS).

I’ve had young Sgts come along as ADS on various courses and put themselves out to do whatever was needed. Eager to learn and happy to get stuck in - and on the same course I’ve had long service Sgts and FSs who do sod all…

It’s a crazy, broken, system we have and it’s not isolated examples.

[AlexCorbin]

My personal opinion is that each promotion should be boarded. With a structure of being able to talk around certain areas to prove you have an understanding…what that is for each rank I’m not quite sure and you should be able to justify your answer through reflective evidence. What this does is acknowledges that there is still skills development in the potential new rank but ensure that the people getting promoted are clued up enough to learn from the experiences and also ensure they have the experience required to do the role. Stops the tick boxing exercise and switches to credible experiences that allow for a better well rounded SNCO/WO. Then if people dont get promoted…then their not ready for the bigger role

I.e. Using your experience as a FS. Tell me what the roles and responsibility of a WO on Camp are and how do you feel you can meet them when on Camp?

I feel the roles and responsibility of a WO on camp are X Y Z I feel I can demonstrate these because last June I attended camp at RAF Cranwell where I was given the responsibility of drill and discip. I feel that I learnt ABC whilst carrying out the role and in hind sight I would DEF differently

[wdimagineer2b]

I believe that a new promotion policy should go along with new training and development streams (as I described in the recent thread about staff cadets).
We should expect that a FS is more knowledgeable and experienced than a Sgt in their field… But also that they are more committed and better in their role!
Therefore candidates for promotion should have demonstrated that commitment to training and development. They should stand out as being better than their peers.

Almost like we do with cadet promotions, eh?..

I really like the Sea Cadet policy of expecting them to hold an instructor qualification and be actively using it.

[steve679]

@wdimagineer2b

I really like the Sea Cadet policy of expecting them to hold an instructor qualification and be actively using it

in the defence of the RAFAC system - a qualification is required, although the evidence of its use is not there.

[wdimagineer2b]

@steve679

although the evidence of its use is not there.

Nor do we give any real progression for staff to achieve it. It’s all very arbitrary.

[AlexCorbin]

A revised promotion criteria could facilitate that

I.e. you use becoming a DI as your qualification for Sgt to FS. For WO I would expect to see firstly you using that DI qual to support the wing but more importantly I’d want to see you either become an SME in an area of drill I.e. band drill but also have evidence that you are utilising it

[wdimagineer2b]

I would tweak that slightly and say that simply becoming a DI isn’t enough for FS.
I’d take your criteria i.e. I expect to see the person using that qual to support the Wing and become an SME - and apply it to FS.
We can have plenty of Sgts beavering away on Squadrons. We don’t need to have FS on Sqns.
If we’ve got people applying for FS then they should really be expected to be working at a level above that.

[AlexCorbin]

I was all under the impression that becoming a DI is a wing roll given the WWO signs it off and contriversaly lack of utilisation at wing level suggests they arent using it so they may not be “current”

[wdimagineer2b]

…and to become a WO (assuming that we don’t apply it to specific roles only) the candidate should be absolutely top of their game; and not just “another good FS”.

[Gunner]

IMHO (for what its worth), Sqns don’t need WO’s. The highest CFAV rank on a Sqn should be FS and the WO rank should be for Sector and Wing. You don’t need Rgn WO’s (what do they do anyway? - I’m happy to be enlightened).

In a perfect world, CFAV officers should be eligible for commissioning at a minimum age of 20 but Sgt rank, at a minimum age of 30 as that would be roughly the same age a regular serviceman would achieve that rank (assuming they joined at 18). Promotion to FS at minimum age of 35 and WO at a minimum age of 40yrs. This would solve the issue of age -v- rank between CFAV and regulars and allow the incumbents to have a lot more life experience, worldly knowledge and maturity.

Of course, we don’t live in that perfect world and because we don’t have a) an abundance of staff and b) the lower rank structure to prepare people for SNCO status, it clearly wouldn’t work in the cadet world.

So how about:

1. ALL CFAV’s do a minimum of 2yrs either as a CI or a uniformed PI, mirroring the ACF. At age 22yrs, CFAV’s can either choose to commission or go SNCO (see (2) below). CFAV’s coming into the organisation over the age of 22yrs still to do 2yrs as a CI or PI before choosing their career pathway. Exceptions granted for candidates who have previous regular or reserve service either as an officer or NCO.

2. Appointment to Sgt at minimum age of 22yrs BUT no promotion until age 30. 8yrs experience in the rank would go a long way. Completion of a qualifying course and a sensible promotion matrix over the 8yr period.

3. Promotion to FS at a minimum age of 30yrs after having completed a sensible promotion matrix and a further qualifying course.

4. Promotion to WO at a minimum age of 35yrs subject to a Wing vacancy, completion of that sensible matrix and another qualifying course. All promotions to this rank and appointment would be in competition with their peers.

These are just thoughts off the top of my head. Would it work? Would parts of it work?

Comments welcome.

[Edited to add: Sgt’s of any age would complete 8yrs in rank before being eligible for promotion to FS. FS would complete a minimum of 5yrs in rank before being eligible for promotion to WO].

[Gunner]

Further to the above and to clarify:

1. CFAV joins as CI. Completes AVIP and Safeguarding in first 12 months.

2. CI becomes uniformed PI for a further 12 months. Completes First Aid and MOI and preps for either SNCO or commissioning board.

3. CFAV commissions or goes Sgt. 8yrs as Sgt. Completes Sgts course. Qualifies as a DI as a minimum. Other matrix promotion topics as relevant to rank including a SME qualification. Maintains first aid currency.

4. Eligible for promotion to FS. Promoted to FS and completes FS course and the relevant part of the promotion matrix including a second SME qualification. Serves in rank for a minimum of 5yrs. Maintains first aid currency.

5. Eligible for promotion to WO. In competition with peers for Wing vacancy and attends promotion board. If promoted to WO, completes WO course. Maintains first aid currency.

[GrandMaster_Flush]

I’m not sure the age thing matters that much. With the reduction in size of the RAF, mingling with regulars is a rarity for most and virtually a never for a lot.

I’m ex-regular, but I’ve been back involved for over 3 years and have thrown myself in to a lot of things, I can count the number of current regulars I’ve encountered on one finger.

If we vet better in the first place, then train better in the second, the argument that “they look younger than real ones” doesn’t matter.

Plus, remember that you can and do get 19 year old direct entry Sgts in the RAF in both the aircrew and ATC worlds.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

Where would staff cadets sit in this? They should have already completed AVIP, safeguarding, First Aid, and MOI. Would they Skip two years?

Why would we treat Officers and SNCOs differently? Plt Off to FO is only 2 years - why should Sgt to FS take 8 (assuming one doesn’t become an instant OC)?

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

@steve679

in the defence of the RAFAC system - a qualification is required, although the evidence of its use is not there.

Why not introduce a training log on SMS, for all ranks. Every time you teach a subject, you log it. Minimum training hours apply for all Ranks and Promotions.

[Biggles_Lovechild]

So maybe we should go the other way - 4 yrs plus relevant experience/quals Plt Off to Fg Off. Flt Lt is only for filling an established role
Likewise SNCO - 4 years plus relevant experience/quals to FS - WO filling an established role (including Sqn Commander?)

[wdimagineer2b]

Alternatively why put people to the trouble of logging every lesson?
Surely a far simpler and ultimately more accurate method would be to ask the SME for the applicant’s “trade”.

“Excuse me, WO Bloggs… How does Sgt Smith perform?”

“Great! They’re super keen, highly competent, and always putting themself forward to assist on the Wing courses. Definitely FS material in my mind.”
or
“I can count on one hand the number of times they’ve turned out; and when they do they need constant prodding. Not FS material.”

[steve679]

@wdimagineer2b

Surely a far simpler and ultimately more accurate method would be to ask the SME for the applicant’s “trade”.

this i think is an easier solution.

currently all it requires is the “ok” from the CO which then agreed by WWO and Wg OC.

None of those want to give someone the bad news. The CO doesn’t as they are the closest to the individual. Sorry Joe, but I am not going to put you forward for promotion, you’re a bit of a dick isn’t going to go down well with moral or future prospects in working relationship (SNCO “feeling the CO hates me”)
if the WWO or Wg OC say “no” - it looks bad on the CO who then thinking: “why is my opinion not trusted?”

Asking the WSO do you know Sgt Jones, have you met him, when he attending the Shooting weekend/greens camp/NCO, radio or first aid training courses did he get involved? type questions will help get a better picture of the individual rather than looking at SMS for a list of attended events.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

All of that is based on opinion, though.

What we need is an evidence based system, where there is no room for personal politics to affect promotion. And more importantly, no room for people to claim that is the case.

Also, why does a FS need to be a SME?

Why must they do stuff at wing level? What about weekend workers who can’t make Wing activities and don’t wan’t to rinse all of their annual leave chasing that extra £10 and a crown?

An individual log, like the old BELA log, or the 7257 where we log all of our SAA sessions, would provide hard evidence of instructing. Except I would have it on the SMS, so it is auditable and available to whoever signs off the promotion.