You raise some interesting points: my comments are as follows:
Originally Posted by
Proletarian
Whilst there is a financial incentive for those who wish to become a direct-entry SNCOs, nothing similar exists for those who join as an officer. I imagine many potential officers who attend AFCOs or Cranwell consider what career options are available and then decide that they would rather not put themselves through JATCC, followed by the endless training and examinations when they will be earning exactly the same as any other ground branch officer. Unsurprisingly they frequently opt for an easier career in Flt Ops, Supply, etc.
I'm not sure that I agree with the general thrust here. For a start, the motivations of a putative ATCO are going to be different to those of other Branches. Nor do I expect the individuals are aware, in any detail, of the time spent doing OJT and being examined at each Unit.
Originally Posted by
Proletarian
Trying to 'shoe-horn' individuals who are not really motivated into ATM is just repeating the same old failed 'solution' of once again papering over the cracks. Retention is the problem that urgently needs to be addressed if VSOs really want to find a solution, but it won't happen and we will continue to loose controllers to NATS and elsewhere.
Whilst I have no doubt that AFCOs will attempt to steer candidates into career paths to meet their own manning requirements, I would be surprised if the individuals would be easily persuaded to change their perceived path. Why would they opt for something radically different [and potentially more demanding] from their first choice?
Originally Posted by
Proletarian
One solution to recruiting and retention would be introducing a structured transition to a civil ATC licence. You could set the qualifying criteria at say a 12 year engagement, recovering the cost of training, whilst allowing the RAF to have the benefit of a cadre of young controllers who are motivated to stay the course. A correspondence course, with an on-line element, could be introduced to begin after 10 years service that would lead to a basic civil ATC licence, followed in the final year by an aerodrome course that would also include time at a civil ATC college. This solution would certainly act as an incentive to join and yet for personal domestic circumstances not everyone would want to leave the RAF, particularly if they wish to remain in a particular geographical area. Whilst there would be a cost, I would have thought the current wastage must be an even greater cost.
Several points here:
1. Amortisation of Training was, IIRC, achieved after the first productive tour as an ATCO, which is why we never worried too much about the loss of WRAF ATCOs on marriage.
2. Motivation to remain is surely [or at least was] the twin dangling carrots of promotion and pension. I appreciate that much has changed since my day, but even for the middle-of-the-road controllers it remained an interesting and rewarding role.
3. The facilitated acquisition of a civil licence rarely entered conversation in my time. In part, I suggest, is that the RAF was generally a good place to be! Now, with less mobility/variety, it may be that the new generations want to sit in the same place, doing the same job, forever. It certainly wasn't what I wanted, but I suspect th RAF is heading that way now with just Swanwick for the Area people and fewer airfields to choose from. Perhaps this is the sad future?
4. Promotion, or indeed the prospect of that, can be a major retention driver. I suspect, however, that those opportunities are now much more narrowly drawn than in my day, when we had 5 x gp capt, 30+ wg cdr and 150+ sqn ldr. BUT, with roughly half of the 'shop floor' being SNCO controllers, there is an ongoing demand for JOs to fill what one would call Junior Management posts (e.g. Watch Supervisor, Local Examining Officer and indeed ATCEEB). It was that requirement, and the need for a decent-sized pool of suitable candidates for promotion to sqn ldr, that demanded [in my day] the retention of the officer/SNCO controller ratio despite suggestions that more SNCOs would be cheaper. (IIRC the ratio was 60/40 Officer/SNCO at the time.)
Originally Posted by
Proletarian
However, I am not holding my breath, as VSOs appear to place little value in the ATM specialisation in general and even less in the actual personnel. In the current climate, manning problems are only likely to get worse, not better.
It will be interesting to see the impact of the combining of the former ATC and FC specialisations, and whether cross-pollination works in practice as well as in theory
