Wouldn't it be rather more appropriate if a Stn Cdr's effectiveness was assessed using rather more relevant criteria? What point is there in saying "Gp Capt X runs a very effective station - no-one carried over more than 15 days leave and N% of the stn passed their RAFFT" when M% of the ac can't be generated, or are delayed or unserviceable for other reasons? Which means that unless Gp Capt X is jumping up and down and kicking the ar$e of the IPTs to get his stn's whole raison d'etre up to a level of operational effectiveness which we actually need, then he/she's not actually offering much value to the Royal AIR (not Admin) Force!
Judging 'management efficiency' by CCS, RAFFT and other such minor distractions indeed! What utter ar$e - no wonder so many people are getting so pi$$ed off and pulling the black-and-yellow! Bring back the days when Stn Cdrs were judged by their ability to achieve 1s and 2s in Tacevals, not whether they had achieved 'IiP' accreditations, met puffed-up 'management key performance indicator' targets or other such totally irrelevant bolleaux!
Incidentally, these comments are general in nature and are NOT aimed at any station in particular.
Last edited by BEagle; 11th May 2002 at 08:00.