Annual Report Advice

[USasBRIEFED]

Could someone please enlighten me to any course of action to a second RO's report. The 1st and 2nd's reports don't match at all, without explanation.

Rgds

USaB

[Melchett01]

I guess it depends what the differences are. If your 1RO likes you but your 2RO doesn't, you're in trouble with the promotion boards. On the other hand, if your 2RO likes you and gave you a good report, then I have always been lead to believe that the boards take more notice of 2RO comments than 1RO.

However, if the 2 are wildly different, isn't this one of the rare occasions where a 3RO comes into play to adjudicate? If not, if your deskie is doing his job properly, it should ring alarm bells and at least he should make enquiries.

[Dan Winterland]

I once had an ACR a bit like that. A Rec from the 1st RO, endorsed by the 2nd RO, the 3rd RO (the Staish) had a different view and gave me a UMR! (I'm convinced he has me confused with someone else). I then embarked on a different career strategy which actually turned out to be the best plan in the end.

Take my advice and start studying for your ATPL!

[R 21]

As mentioned your deskie if worth his salt should kick it back to your RO's to get it sorted.

[cobaltfrog]

Unfortunately you have no official comback over a 2RO as this is mean't to be the whole ethos behind independant reporting and the same reason why the 1st RO should not craft comments for the 2nd RO (Yeah right!!!). The only thing you can do is appeal to the 2RO direct if you disagree and argue your case, if it is the 1RO then utilise the 24hr review window to craft comments to attach. If the comments have fair weighting and reason behind them then you could be in for a change. The first RO is only under remit to discuss with 1RO when you are crap or outstanding, otherwise not.

[Dave Angel]

USaB,

If your 1st and 2nd RO's are not in agreement they should sort it out before going to press as it were. If they can't then the situation merits a 3rd RO report to add balance.

Good Luck.

DA

[Union Jack]

It all reminds me of a report that once passed over my desk:

1st RO X is well above average in all respects

2nd RO In reality, my own impression is that X is a no hoper

3rd RO And he has had a very bad year

Jack

PS No reflection on the initial poster, who should definitely seek clarification without delay

[Chicken Leg]

I disagree! Isn't that the whole point of having two reporting officers! If they have to agree then what is the point of doing it twice?

There are very strict rules for redress. If it's factually incorrect or leaves something significant out and falls within quite tight timeframes, then you may have grounds for redress. Remember, you sign it to say you have seen it, not to say you agree with it.

[whowhenwhy]

Yes but chicken you sign as having said that you've seen the 1st ROs report. The 2nd RO doesn't have to debrief you and on the basis that you've seen the report either a) you've had a 2nd RO debrief and they should have talked about the discrepancy then or b) the report has come to you from ACOS Manning. If there is such a discrepancy and a 3rd RO hasn't done anything, the desky SHOULD pass it back to the Stn. Of course if it's that bad it should never have left Stn and OC MPS should have said something...

[3portdrift]

AR

The key is, why weren't you warned at the 6 month point that someone in the chain of command wasn't happy with your performance?

I know of a successful redress of a 2nd RO who disagreed with the 1st RO. The key was why the ROs had not agreed on a performance level between themselves and then passed the info on to the subject at the 6 month interview.

[Chicken Leg]

The key was why the ROs had not agreed on a performance level between themselves

If this course of action is taken, the the RO's are hardly independant; you might as well discard one of them and save some valuable time.

In an ideal world, both RO's would wright very similar reports without consultation. After all, the subject is either up to scratch or he is not and both RO's would/should recognise that. That said, I'm not naive enough to believe that that is the common approach. My point is, that when two RO's write independantly (as they should), it's being critisised. Surely, the question in this case should be 'Why do my two RO's perceive me so differently?'

I do agree to a point about the mid year appraisal, although statistically, there's a 50/50 chance that the RO's concerns were realised after the MYA was conducted. Annual Reports are a nightmare, because invariably, individuals often consider themselves as better than they actually are and don't like being told differently. This means that as an RO, you have to make sure you are bullet proof, especially when writing a poor report. I can remember having to compile a folder of evidence whilst writing a poor report in preparation for an expected redress! Just think about that. There was no doubt within the Chain of Command that this individual was pi55 poor and extremely lazy, but in order for me to be able to report it how it was, we had to prepare for a redress before I had even finished writing it!

[4mastacker]

Chicken Leg wrote:

I can remember having to compile a folder of evidence whilst writing a poor report in preparation for an expected redress!

Can I ask 'why'? Whatever happend to an individual's 'Blue File' that used to be held in PSF (or whatever its called now)? ISTR that was the means to record various details of an individual's performance/history - be it good or bad - and was available to the CoC for reference or action. Bad news for a subject should come as no surprise if the individual's CoC had been doing the MYAs and recording the appropriate information throughout the reporting period. Having to deal with numerous 'blue files' was a pain when I had better things to do, but it was part and parcel of the duty that goes with the job.