'In House' Commsioning

[Northern Circuit]

Is it me or do we have a 'spanish inquisition' that seems the selection process is easier for the guy on civvy street rather than the guy that already has leadership qualities recognised; until he applies; then hes expected to learn how to build a tripod and regurgitate the telegraph

[Hummingfrog]

They make you eat the TELEGRAPH nowadays then:yuk: What is the world coming too;)

HF

[Role1a]

SNCO leadership qualities do not necessarily read across it is argued that it is a different type of leadership so further training is deemed necessary to highlight these differences. Not all Hairys on IOT do well, especially the Ex SNCOs who are some times set in their ways. I think they should do a training course but perhaps not the full IOT.

And before someone mentions the army system, few of the automatic commissions become platoon cdrs etc and lead the men into battle, they normally end up behind a desk or similar. I believe it was called a QMs commission years ago, not sure if it the same now.

[tablet_eraser]

When writing 6000s for my troops it is evident that some of them should be more than capable of undergoing the rigours of OASC and IOT. One does sometime get the impression, however, that these airmen would find it easier to attend OASC if they left the RAF first and applied from civvy street. This is absurd. About time we started to change this, and that we recognise the fact that airmen have many additional skills to bring to the officer corps - not least their experience.

[SpotterFC]

I believe it's a lot easier for them now than was the case a few years ago. No more station boards etc, just down to the CIO same as the lad or lass from civvy street.

There is an element of them being expected to know more about the RAF, its activities and equipment once they get to OASC, but attitudes to ''oiks' gettin' above their station' at OASC, that's another matter...

[Point0Five]

This is an interesting topic, I've always found it disappointing that an internal applicant for a commission needs to jump through more hoops than old mate who has just walked into recruiting, straight off the street.

Having said that, I do believe that the culture of endorsing all well performing airmen for a commission to be a tad unfair on all concerned. At the risk of sounding like an elitist **** (which is not my intent), I find that you generally encounter two kinds of ex-troops in the officer ranks: bloody brilliant or extremely disappointing, very rarely any in the middle ground.

[SirToppamHat]

Whilst I agree that it is more difficult to commission from the ranks in that your employer knows a lot more about you than it does about the average Joe off the street, I am not entirely convinced these days that it is all bad.

At my Unit, there is a 'Commissioning Club', which is aimed as much at encouraging people to apply and ensuring they are as well-prepared as possible for the process, as it is in ensuring candidates have the right quals etc. This is how it should be at all Units - if not it is very sad.

What I don't particularly like, if it is still happening, is the way that some applicants are treated when it comes to the results. I had one strong applicant meet all the standards required, but not get it because there were too many applicants from the ranks that were in competition; the numbers were ridiculous as well. After 3 attempts, eventually they left the Service.

STH

[kitwe]

STH

I agree with your last point. Some time ago, I worked at OASC and the guys who had the hardest deal were the nco aircrew trying for a commission within their own branch. Largely, they were streets ahead of their civilian counterparts in terms of officer potential but few of them, despite positive recs, were offered places at IOT - the reason being that Innsworth limited the quota to one or 2.

[opso]

So, kitwe, how many direct entrant applicants were accepted during your time at OASC for commissioned ALM/AEO etc? I somehow suspect that the serving nco aircrew looking to commission within their own branch did better than the civilians.

Of course, those looking to rebranch on commissioning may or may not have had a harder time than the civilian applicants, but there are plenty of pilots in the service currently who were nco aircrew previously, so they do get through.

[kitwe]

opso,

The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with civilians applying for anything. There were many nco aircrew who (for many, generally personal reasons) did not seek a commission in any branch other than their own. Those who chose to apply for a re-branch often did better than their civilian fellow candidates. Some of the best (serving) candidates I ever saw were guys who had just finished Halton apprenticeships. Does that tell you something.

[opso]

So to recap...

The first 6 posts discussed the apparent disparity in the commissioning chances of enlisted personnel vs direct applicants.

STH (in his last point) highlighted the impact of the old quota limiting the number of successful 'from the ranks' applicants when applying for a commission.

You agreed with his last point but quoted what may be the only situation where enlisted personnel applying for a commission do not compete against civilian applicants. The limit on the number of successful applicants has nothing to do with them being enlisted, rather the total number of commissioned back-end aircrew the Service requires, in exactly the same way that Innsworth limits all branches and trades to meet the IPS, regardless of who the applicants may be.
Does that tell you something. Yes, it tells me that I have absolutely no idea what point you were trying to support or introduce and I'm not certain you know either.

[Trumpet_trousers]

while you 2 are busy zipping your flies up, and long before you get to see who has p*ssed the furthest between you, you should realise that it's all academic (no pun intended) anyway.....there will shortly be only Pilots and WSOs that hold Commissions, the rest will be Non-Commissioned Aircrew (NCA):ok: