It’s always going to be based on opinion; and so it should be.
The key is ensuring that it’s the trusted opinion of an SME.
When we promote cadets we not only look at what they’ve “done” but we consider whether - in our opinion (which is based on years of experience) - they are the right candidate for the rank.
An “evidence based” system is only ever going to give a sliver of the full picture. Yes, they might turn out for lots, but they might be an arrogant whatsit… Or they might turnout regularly, but be basically useless.
You can’t judge a person’s suitability by a series of boxes to tick. We have to rely on the superior power of a human brain to consider a host of variables and factors.
Because if they are going to be promoted above their peers it has to be because they have some additional experience, competence, and leadership ability. Otherwise there ends up being little point in having a rank structure and it serves little purpose other than to massage a few egos and serve as a misplaced reward for people just turning up to do their ‘job’.
I’d say “hard luck” in most cases.
As I’ve said above, I believe that promotion shouldn’t be a “reward” for someone doing their job at their current rank - but should be about putting the right people into the right spots to lead their peers.
In most cases that is going to require them to be able to comit to more than their two nights a week at the sqn.
That’s not to say that the person who does great work on the Sqn but work prevents them from doing more is in any way a “bad CFAV”, but if they are unable to fill the requirements of the rank then they shouldn’t get it.
It’s not always going to be a reflection of incompetence; in some cases it will simply be because their circumstances don’t permit it.
There’d be nothing wrong with being a Sgt for one’s entire ATC ‘career’.
Granted there may be exceptions to the rule, but in general I think we should expect more from a FS than we do from a Sgt.
But by doing that, you remove a portion of CFAV from being eligible to take a job at Wing level - Or if they do a Wing level job, you’re preventing them from attaining a WO rank and pay, regardless of how good they are. Do we have enough future wing staff that we can afford to do that from day 1?
Your arrogance is someone else’s confidence.
I don’t disagree with that thought process, but it’s how we assess and prove that, that is the issue. “Opinions” of anyone, however well placed, are just too woolly IMO.
Additional experience - SMS or Training logs
Competence - in what exactly? by being a SME? What does that prove, except you can do 1 thing a minimum acceptable standard?
Leadership ability - Surely the pre-uniform selection should address that??
This I disagree with. IMO, the Sqn should be the most important formation in the organisation. CFAV should never be penalised for not taking part in wing level events. If you want to remove FS and WO from squadrons, in the same way that Sqn Ldr is reserved (mostly) for wing staff, then fine. We already have awards and recognition mechanisms available to recognise those that go above and beyond - lets use those for the staff that contribute to wing events.
No, I wouldn’t say that. I know plenty of Sgts who are active in the Wing. They’re not prevented from taking the roles because they’re not yet a FS.
Further, my opinion in this regard was in response to the suggestion that they weren’t able to take that wing job anyway…
If they are active in that wing level role and performing to a high standard then under my scheme, far from being prevented, they would be the most likely candidate for promotion.
That really is the way of the world though isn’t it. The performance of a junior in any walk of life is graded by the opinion of their seniors. It’s how promotion works in the regulars, in the job world…
Somebody is making a decision about the suitibility of a person for a particular role.
Exactly that - that you can do (at least) one thing to a standard better than your peers.
If someone only achieves a minimum standard then they’re not really a Subject Matter Expert are they. I don’t consider someone to be an SME the moment they pick a particular “trade”. They have to develop within that trade.
Absolutely not. Pre uniform is looking at people right at the very beginning of their potential uniformed service. The leadership ability required from a brand new Sgt who will be leading cadets is different from that which should be expected from a long serving CFAV who will be leading staff. The individual should have developed and improved a lot since they started if they are to attain WO for example.
This is I think the key area where our thoughts differ…
Some view promotion as almost accepted and not gaining promotion as “being penalised”. Whereas I come at it from the other angle…
I see that we all volunteer to be a Sgt, and that promotion beyond that is a tool to ensure that we’ve got good people leading other staff; by recognising the additional experience and skill that some people will display.
I’ll grant that given the way promotions have been handled in many places over the last 16 years it’s going to take an adjustment of mindset and management of expectations - Instead of staff assuming that they’ll be promoted in a few years barring any big issues; they need to be aware that certainly, anyone can achieve promotion but that it’ll be given to those who can step beyond the role of a Sgt.
And it needs to be clear that remaining as a Sgt is not in itself a negative.
Not - "If you do these few things and keep your nose clean for 4 years you’ll get FS" But - "If you want FS, go for it! But you’ll need to demonstrate that you are better than the other Sgts."
Again, exactly as we do with our cadet promotions.
I’d say that what we should be aiming for are lots of Sgts who are learning and developing, and performing to a good standard; FSs who are a step beyond - having demonstrated a greater knowledge and competence than most of the Sgts; The FS are there helping not only the cadets but helping the Sgts to develop; and then WOs at the top who are top of their game and notably stand out above the FSs.
although the evidence needs to be more than a record of attendance via SMS imo.
I would suggest the peer review is in addition to, rather than instead of the current system.
With regards the matrix and “list B” (Wing Teams) currently the evidence is via attendance - it requires some level of measurement of the “assistance” to that List B team, likewise a qualification from list A.
as an AT qualification this could be achieved and then piggy backing another CFAVs event - but holding the qualification consider not adding to the ratios.
on SMS they attended a dozen BEL level walks and a DofE expedition - but all they did with the qualification was be self-sufficient - ie with those skills could look after themselves. rather than use the qualification in anger and organise half of those BEL level day walks, or put a AT weekend together.
I am not saying it happens on our unit, but we’re fortunate in we have a few climbing wall award CFAVs. they all attend the Squadron climbing events when they can, sometime all three others just the two of them.
It isn’t my area so i don’t pay attention to it, but i would guess given the individuals that they take it in turns for each person to take the lead. John one day, James the next, Joe the following and so on, rather than have James and Joe always playing second fiddle/piggy backing on John’s event every time.
I use climbing as an example we could apply on our unit, but i am sure the same is true for shooting. How often is it the one leading the Shooting Wing shooting day is typically also the RCO who books the range, books the ammunition and books the weapons - while all other RCOs who attend that day…simply attend and do the RCO bit on the range - rarely if ever (in my experience) does an RCO complete the off-range tasks to make an event happen, the majority seem to be happy to rock up to the Wing event and sign on - have their go - sign off again.
Certainly one example that comes to mind for the List B (Wing Teams) is the Wing Radio courses I am often seen at.
I am very happy with the material and teaching it (blue or Bronze), but i am always joined by other CFAVs as is the way of a Wing course. One in particular is very resistant to teaching and always seems happy me taking the lion’s share of the teaching elements of the course. Given the individual’s biggest(/only) input in the day is taking his share of the assessments is that sufficient “assistance to a Wing team” to be worthy of recognition of the additional skill, experience, knowledge the individual has? when the other CFAVs have all taught 2-3 or more lessons in the day?
agreed - and as i said in addition to.
if it isn’t based on opinion we’d have no defence against not promotion our own Cadets as they have ticked the boxes. As as relative “easy” as it is now to tick the boxes, others will find a way to do with any improved/harder system
it then needs some integrity for those opinions to say “no” - but often that hasn’t happened. I have known more people to hear “go away and come back in 6, 9, 12 months time” for a uniform board, than I have “Sgt Bloggs ticked all the matrix boxes but has been refused FS because their OC/WWO/Wg OC won’t sign it off…”
seconded.
Most OCs are Flt Lts, and many who are Officers and not desire the rank as they see it fitting for the role.
avoiding the politics of if there is truth in having a rank because an office is held, and considering purely rank part of the reason the OC tends to be the senior rank is because as @wdimagineer2b indicates in the quoted line - they are the right person for senior position (which i accept in this example is the position of OC)
i know of one example in our Sector. He works shifts and doesn’t have the health for the intensity of a week long summer camp let alone an AT or greens camp. although a Sgt for 8+ years, and thus “overdue” a promotion he never will, nor has interest in ticking the boxes for the crown. He’s happy where he is, and likes what he can do in that position as a Sgt - nothing would change for him if he became a FS so doesn’t see the need or have the drive for it.
We’ve got a great example of the non-commissioned CoC in action for First Aid.
The First Aid Officer knows everything there is to know about Corps First Aid and a lot more besides. That’s why they’re a WO.
Then we’ve got a few FS who are delivering the training on YFA and AFA Courses. They’re training staff and assisting the other DS to progress. They are knowledgeable but they don’t hold the ultimate responsibility which the WO does.
And then they’ve got a couple of Sgts on the team. Some who are new to first aid and are developing and a couple who know it well but haven’t yet got the time in for FS (once that time comes they’ll be good FS).
And then there are Sgts on Sqns delivering Heartstart.
I have a similar set up in the drill sphere.
As I say, promotion isn’t just a fancy way of saying well done - it’s a responsibility.
The job of a FS isn’t just the same thing as a Sgt but with a crown and a higher ‘station’… It has (or rather it should have - if we utilised the structure properly) additional responsibilities and requirements, and some people simply won’t be able to fulfill those; for various reasons.
“Do you want FS? Good for you… Then if you are successful you’ll be expected to be training and developing all these Sgts below you…”
In an ideal world I agree with much of this. But, when you have newly appointed APOs or Probationary Sgts running squadrons/sections we’re never going to get to this system of progression within rank and clear delineation between ranks.
I don’t know… If we’re in a position where probationary Sgts are running Sqns then I don’t see how being more rigid in terms of promotions could make things any worse.
Unless you’re perhaps saying that because of circumstance they are stuck in a local role with out the ideal opportunity to develop themselves beyond that?
Though in that case, whilst it’s a shame, if they’re stuck in a local role then they likely wouldn’t be in a position to fulfill the greater requirements of FS anyway.
So, whilst it might not be their ideal choice, they may be a victim of circumstance.
The problem we have is one of assumed entitlement which is societal not just restricted to the Air Cadets. Because I’m this I am entitled to whatever I think and you can’t say no.
So now we have a system of matrices which when completed off you go. You would need to have someone make a complete hash of it.
I think the biggest problem we have in the ATC is that ALL adult SNCOs are supposed to be drill pigs, you only have to see the excitement around DI and D&C. As a sqn Cdr I see Drill/Discip as just a small part of what we do, so I think we should move to something more akin to “trades” where you progress in line with that trade. I was going to another squadron for a few weeks the other year while we were planning a DofE. They had 2 Sgts and a FS (adults supposedly) who squabbled about who was doing inspections, drill etc, it was embarrassing to watch, but completely understandable given the way the ATC works and to get promotion they all needed to do it, but IMO it shouldn’t be like this, but to suggest this will be tantamount to heresy.
I would respectfully suggest that they are running a unit then they have already taken on responsibility far greater than that of the average Flight Sergeant and that they shouldn’t therefore be punished for taking on that responsibility and should instead be lauded and rewarded.
Lauded yes… But if they’re a probationary Sgt they are certainly not ready for promotion to FS, even if they have been dropped into running a unit.
If they’ve satisfied the minimum time requirements and are in command of a Sqn then sure, that could potentially be an acceptable justification for promotion.
Though it should be considered as one of those exceptions to the rule since Sqns are “supposed” to be run by Commissioned Officers.
So what you’re saying is, in order to progress and develop oneself, one should refuse to take on any major responsibility at squadron level, in case it hinders your promotion prospects?
Where is the training and development for those that choose to prioritise being on a unit? By saying “Tough”, you’ll just create a system that favours those that put themselves or Wing before their Squadron.
Can I ask about the SCC method?
The sea cadet method works for them, although I’m assuming they don’t have wavy navy version of ATF? Looking at the criteria you posted, the PO criteria looks to be the equivalent of going through the AVIP, and SNCO course at Cranwell. To get to CPO, it just asks for an instructor level qualification - does it give a list of these? Or would Heart start instructor count? Do they have instructor level qualifications that are used on the unit (knot tying, semaphore etc), or are they all off unit quals - shooting, AT etc?
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that to be eligible for promotion one should be demonstrably outperforming when compared to one’s peers. I’ve made that pretty clear this whole time.
If someone can do that whilst maintaining a local role (it is perfectly possible) then fine.
There could be scope for advancement on a unit but it’s always going to be limited - such as stepping up to the Sqn Discip role; but arguably there no reason that role can’t be properly fulfilled by a Sgt in the majority of cases.
But if someone can’t outperform their peers (for whatever reason) then they shouldn’t be promoted.
It’s there… But one has to go out looking for it. Someone could go out and gain a Lowland Leaders Award qual for example and then only use it with their own Sqn.
But ultimately, if someone is unable to do more than just two evenings a week then they’re really not going to be able to achieve what’s required for SNCO promotion.
A key part of my suggestion though is that we should be creating defined training pathways for staff to assist and guide them through development in their preferred field; and providing competent instructors (at FS and WO) to train our staff. We focus a lot on training cadets but I think not nearly enough on training our own staff locally. Other than AFA it all gets palmed off to ATF or Region specialist teams for AT for example.
So? I keep saying: “It’s not a reward” and remaining a Sgt on a Squadron-only post is not a negative.
Promotion brings a different role. Sgt is a great “at the coal face” role working directly with cadets on one’s own Sqn. A FS though should be responsible for developing and managing Sgts. Their role would then include an element of ensuring that we’ve got plenty of well-trained Sgts out there on the squadrons, delivering the cadet experience. Now, that can certainly be done in one role whilst also holding a role on a Sqn, but perhaps not by everyone - that’s just the way it is.
This is nothing new. Officers don’t get automatic promotion beyond Fg Off either. If an officer aspires to be a Flt Lt or Sqn Ldr they have to take on a different role which holds greater responsibility and expectations.
It’s the way of things - Promotion in any organisation comes with a move away from lower level org and into a higher level of management.
Do you give the stockroom supervisor a promotion to “Assistant Regional Manager” if all they continue to do is control the stock room in one branch and they don’t have any involvement at regional mangement level?
They have the national Sea Cadet Training Centre down in Portsmouth, but they also have far more regional training opportunities for staff.
Their system goes further than ours. They have their equivalent of AVIP which is required during their probationary period. They have a minimum of 12 months in acting rank before advancement to substantive rank.
They then have the modular courses, some of which are similar to that covered on the SSIC.
But they go further and have to pass subject specialisation.
It would be akin to our guys completing AVIP, then attending ATF, and then also training and passing courses in youth development, Airmanship, Map reading/comms/fieldcraft; and then also passing a basic leadership course.
That’s all just to be a substantive PO/Sgt - i.e. “getting rid of the white tabs”.
Promotion to CPO then requires minimum of 5 years at substantive rank; keeping their instructional methods qualification current (which isn’t a requirement for our staff), plus holding an instructor level qual - I don’t have the documentation to describe their training streams, but one can choose different trades and can become an instructor in Seamanship, sailing, Drill, Skill at Arms, etc.
I’m not sure if Heartstart would be an equivalent level but I suspect possibly not (having seen the standards required for their DIs for example). YFA instructor certainly would satisfy the requirement.
In addition to that they have to pass the CPO & CSgt qualifying course.
I suspect there are “on-unit” instructor quals but I don’t know if that level is suitable for promotion or not. What I can say is that they tend to have tiered qualifications and those with higher ranks and / or higher level quals are expected to pass that knowledge on to their subordinate staff.
Compared to us they have a more clearly defined structure which aids management and development at all levels; whereas we are far more like one big homogeneous SNCO mash, but with different badges on our shoulders.
I know that post SSIC training was heavily discuss at this years conference. Its known that currently its attend SSIC then get thrown in the deep end. I believe there may be a working group looking into what the RAFAC can do.
My opinion though is that wings should take responsibility for that and help develop an individual into their desired “trade”
I totally agree with that concept. I do, however, disagree with your idea of how you prove it.
You seem to mix and match the eligibility for promotion - is it post related (Sqn = Sgt, Wing = FS, Region = WO), is it qualification related (Sgt = No quals, FS = Qualified in a subject, WO = command qualification?), or is it performance related (Sgt = adequate, FS = Good, WO = Excellent)?
Being good at one subject isn’t the same as being good at being an NCO.
The current officer steam isn’t perfect, but it does offer everyone the ability to go up one level whilst volunteering only on the sqn - as should the NCO stream. I agree that there is no shame in being a career Sgt (or Plt Off, for that matter), but that shouldn’t be forced upon people because of work or family commitments.
What would happen if someone had to reduce their commitment levels - would they also lose their rank?
We will always staff who contribute more than others; they should be rewarded - but not by rank, by using the current mechanism of awards and commendations.
I’d say that it’s not really any of those separately, because that’s too prescriptive; I guess it’s a combination.
I’m not suggesting that gaining a qual = FS. Someone might specialise and qualify and still be unsuitable.
Nor should it be specifically “post” related - it would be perfectly common to have Sgts working at Wing level, and WOs also on Squadrons.
Indeed, but that also depends on what you consider to be the role of an NCO.
Someone may be highly competent in their field but not have the required leadership skills to be an effective NCO. But equally, someone might have great leadership potential but if they aren’t competent in their field then they can’t lead others in that field.
I’m trying to approach this from the question: “what do we require from a FS?”
The answer I come up with is:
A candidate for promotion should have demonstrable competence beyond others at their level - this could be achieved through CPD and assessment by their superior. I’m a Drillie for example; I can tell you which Sgts are good at drill, smart in turnout and bearing, are keen to get involved in the job, and as such, which will make the best candidates for FS in that field. If I’ve got a keen Sgt who shows potential but is not yet a DI then they are of only limited use and would not be a good candidate for FS - in that field. That’s where gaining the DI qualification not only gives them the skills and knowledge required to progress but is an easily demonstrable way to assess it.
They should have leadership and line management skill - This can be best gauged by the opinion of others who know what to look for.
They should be able to fill the extra responsibilities required from a higher rank.
In the drill sphere, I need good FS who can attend Wing courses and Parades; Who have a better than average knowledge of drill; Who I can trust to train staff as well as cadets; and who can command others under their own initiative. So that, say, if I am arranging a big Review I can delegate areas of responsibility to a number of FSs who will go off and train and manage juniors.
Each of those areas are equally important. If someone has the skills but not the time to be able to use them as we need then they’re not a good candidate. That doesn’t mean that they’ve got to be out every weekend on drill events; but if they are never able to attend then they bring nothing to the table to warrant a higher rank.
Now, at the Sqn we are, almost all of us, generalists and that’s fine. Few people though are going to be better at everything than their peers. Even though we don’t have formal “trade” pathways we already note that Sgt Bloggs loves Drill and is highly knowledgeable; or that Sgt Jones is heavily involved in first aid training; &c.
There’d be nothing to stop Sgt Jones from gaining FS as a result of her involvement with First Aid, but also holding an AT qualification and getting involved there too, even though her skill and knowledge in the AT sphere alone might not be suitable yet to qualify her for FS if that were her preferred field.
I believe that the answer to “how do you assess/prove superior competence?” lies in letting people choose their primary role and having them follow a defined progression.
Ok, I get what you’re saying, and I don’t fundamentally disagree it. That said, I can’t see how the whole trade “pathway” can be directly linked to Rank, unless you use it as a minimum criteria for a course?
Swap FS for DI, and the rank become irrelevant? Unless you’re saying we shouldn’t accept Sgts onto DI courses?
Personally, I would edit your requirements to the following, and make them mandatory for both the NCO and Officer Cadre:
A candidate for promotion should have demonstrable competence as an Instructor.
They should display leadership and line management skills.
Those are really the fundementals of what we do with cadets.
This, I can’t get onboard with. Our primary role should always be as Squadron Staff. DI, RCO, WGL should all be add ons that we seek to enhance the time the cadets spend on our squadrons - otherwise we may as well just close up our units, and advertise these weekend courses online. Yes, sometimes it’s more cost/staff effective to deliver training at a higher level (it’s very hard to fully staff a 6 lane Barrack range firing L98A2s from 1 squadron, for example), but assuming all training should be centralised is dangerous.
I’m not suggesting that it is directly linked to rank - What I’m suggesting is that it provides a way of developing and then demonstrating the required attributes for promotion.
It’s important to have competence as an instructor as you say, but part of that is having good subject matter knowledge.
A training pathway would provide new staff with a clear route to gaining that knowledge and developing their skill as an instructor in an area which interests them.
You questioned earlier “Where is the training and development?” - That’s what a trade pathway would make clear.
“Hello New Sgt… What interests you?.. Okay, great… Let’s look at the pathway… Here are the various courses available in that area and this is how we suggest you proceed… [lower level course], [higher level course], [train the trainer] if you fancy…”
But in what capacity?
Staff already pick the courses which interest them… How would formalising the route for progression within that field be anything but a positive move?
If someone is keen on drill show them exactly how they can progress and develop that interest.
If it’s First Aid, let them see the progression within that field…
I also fundamentally disagree that we should, all of us, always be focussed as Sqn staff - I feel that is specifically where the Corps is losing out.
We’ve got people working at the Sqn delivering the cadet experience. We’ve also got people who would be well placed to train our Sqn staff to be better at their jobs, but we often don’t utilise them properly.
There should be absolutely no shame in moving away from a Squadron and contributing to the bigger picture in a different capacity; or as a great many of us do, taking on a role in addition to that on the Sqn.
Good staff training will result in better cadet training.
This is where I think the SCC really put us to shame. As I’ve said in the past, the SCC and RMC CFAVs I’ve worked with have almost all been more professional, better skilled, and less likely to take themselves too seriously than many of our own.
The training that is delivered to cadets is on a more even footing because the staff have all been trained to the same standard.
It’s a direct result of having a structure which provides support and development to the CFAV.