|
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 10855294)
would you be brave enough to tell that to Stu Peach's face?
and if you are, can I come and watch? |
Originally Posted by cheifofdefence
(Post 10855300)
At the risk of thread-drift, I acknowledge that the requirement for aircrew to 'head' the organisation is worthy of debate however my observation is that the majority of the future 'leaders' of the RAF are effectively identified very early on in their careers primarily based on flying ability, not leadership ability. I was once told by a deskie that in order to have the 'reach' to get to CAS you need to be promoted to Sqn Ldr around the age of 30 - but what 'leadership' qualities have you displayed by then as aircrew? I've had many a conversation with flying colleagues about the concept of 'leadership in the air' (e.g. 4-ship lead) but to me this is more in line with management of a task (albeit very skilled management) rather than any ability to motivate, engage, develop etc. Indeed the most important box on the OJAR to my mind (if it still exists) when it comes to assessing leadership potential is the one that assesses 'subordinate development' - but what opportunity have aircrew had to display this? This is not to say that aircrew can't be good leaders, but that the behaviours they are selected, promoted and identified by early on in their careers are not necessarily the ones required to 'lead' the organisation at the more senior levels. Indeed I still recall a former VSO (3*?) addressing a leadership conference a couple of years ago effectively saying that he had got to the top by being the arrogant fighter pilot who knew how to do everything and that if he shouted louder people would jump higher and that's how he had been taught to do leadership (or words to that effect). This is not to say that aircrew cannot/do not make good leaders, but that the ability to fly an F35 does not necessarily make you a more capable leader than your peers.
PS Although I have not personally met him I have heard similar comments to RLE's regarding the 3* Engineer. For a start, one’s airborne ability is written about on a separate Aircrew Insert Slip to an OJAR. Everyone is so much more ‘aware’ of leadership now, it’s merits, failings and what are thought be its components are, due to the numerous courses that are conducted throughout one’s career which focus on this very subject. |
Foghorn, not sure if you are agreeing or challenging! I'm not saying that aircrew are selected on the merits of 'airborne leadership' but that this is the response I get when challenging colleagues about what leadership potential junior aircrew officers have displayed (again this is not to say that they do not possess leadership qualities but that they have had little opportunity to practice, display and develop them). I do agree that everyone is much more aware of leadership which is probably why the AFCAS results (as alluded to in the AFPRB report) do not make favorable reading when it comes to personnel's views on their confidence in the senior leadership of the Service and the extent to which change is managed well (which to me is a leadership function despite the use of the word 'managed'). I also think that we tend to promote on followership rather than leadership - who writes your OJAR - indeed I had one Sqn boss who spent all his time making sure the stats were up to date and no time at all engaging with his people and making them feel part of the team....unsurprisingly he went on to air rank and was still the same when I recently bumped into him at Air Command.
|
RLE
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me and I accept I may not be correct.
My view though is that it might be a little embarrassing when the person in charge of the Air Force finds themselves at a high level meeting and may have to turn to an advisor for help with basic air-minded questions. I’m sorry, but with the best will in the world and all the managerial and organisational skills an individual can muster, I just can’t imagine many, if any, non aircrew individuals possessing the appropriate level of knowledge of air power to pass muster. As much as everyone hates aircrew and thinks we are all a bunch of prima donnas I’m afraid the role of the RAF is the delivery of Air Power. The airborne portion is done by aircrew and everyone else is there to support that. You can disagree with me all you like but I will take some convincing that the individual who leads the Air Force should not be aircrew. You will note I haven’t said Fast Jet and I haven’t said pilot. BV |
An RN anslogy
https://wavellroom.com/2018/11/06/ho...irst-sea-lord/ and BV - to ask a question to your straw man, do you have an examples of senior non-aviator RAF Officers having to as simple air-based questions? And how is that different to an aviator having to ask an analogous question on logistics, HR, engineering etc? |
AtG
I do not have any specific examples and I’m not about to waste a single second trying to find any.
In fact my point about the ‘high level’ briefing was largely hypothetical as well in an attempt to illustrate a point. You seem to want to pick my ‘straw man’ argument to pieces so feel free. I won’t waste too much thought or energy countering you. In broad terms the Chief of the Air Staff needs an extensive working knowledge of his/her assets. That comes from operating them. You don’t need to be a pilot and you don’t need to have flown every platform but the multitude of considerations and levels of knowledge that need to be possessed to understand the implications and capabilities of air power are extremely unlikely to come from an individual who has never flown. The non aircrew VSO may well be an incredible leader of people (and I understand the argument in your article) but when you need to direct people into harms way in aircraft and make decisions and representations about what assets are required it will definitely help if you have some experience in the field of aviation. This argument will basically fall on one of two sides. Those who think CAS should be aircrew (probably mostly consisting of aircrew) and those that think CAS need not be aircrew (probably mostly by those who are not aircrew). If I’m honest I’m not sure I really care either way and BV’s opinion will not affect things one bit. I’ll call CAS Sir/Ma’am regardless and my life won’t really be affected much regardless of their branch. BV |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10855889)
I do not have any specific examples and I’m not about to waste a single second trying to find any.
In fact my point about the ‘high level’ briefing was largely hypothetical as well in an attempt to illustrate a point. You seem to want to pick my ‘straw man’ argument to pieces so feel free. I won’t waste too much thought or energy countering you. In broad terms the Chief of the Air Staff needs an extensive working knowledge of his/her assets. That comes from operating them. You don’t need to be a pilot and you don’t need to have flown every platform but the multitude of considerations and levels of knowledge that need to be possessed to understand the implications and capabilities of air power are extremely unlikely to come from an individual who has never flown. The non aircrew VSO may well be an incredible leader of people (and I understand the argument in your article) but when you need to direct people into harms way in aircraft and make decisions and representations about what assets are required it will definitely help if you have some experience in the field of aviation. This argument will basically fall on one of two sides. Those who think CAS should be aircrew (probably mostly consisting of aircrew) and those that think CAS need not be aircrew (probably mostly by those who are not aircrew). If I’m honest I’m not sure I really care either way and BV’s opinion will not affect things one bit. I’ll call CAS Sir/Ma’am regardless and my life won’t really be affected much regardless of their branch. BV |
[…]do you have an examples of senior non-aviator RAF Officers having to ask simple air-based questions? "What's currency", he asked. He was genuinely thankful for the explanation as he had no knowledge of 28 day currency requirements. |
"The non aircrew VSO may well be an incredible leader of people (and I understand the argument in your article) but when you need to direct people into harms way in aircraft and make decisions and representations about what assets are required it will definitely help if you have some experience in the field of aviation."
Is that not the role of DCOM Ops? |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10855889)
I do not have any specific examples and I’m not about to waste a single second trying to find any.
In fact my point about the ‘high level’ briefing was largely hypothetical as well in an attempt to illustrate a point. You seem to want to pick my ‘straw man’ argument to pieces so feel free. I won’t waste too much thought or energy countering you. In broad terms the Chief of the Air Staff needs an extensive working knowledge of his/her assets. That comes from operating them. You don’t need to be a pilot and you don’t need to have flown every platform but the multitude of considerations and levels of knowledge that need to be possessed to understand the implications and capabilities of air power are extremely unlikely to come from an individual who has never flown. The non aircrew VSO may well be an incredible leader of people (and I understand the argument in your article) but when you need to direct people into harms way in aircraft and make decisions and representations about what assets are required it will definitely help if you have some experience in the field of aviation. This argument will basically fall on one of two sides. Those who think CAS should be aircrew (probably mostly consisting of aircrew) and those that think CAS need not be aircrew (probably mostly by those who are not aircrew). If I’m honest I’m not sure I really care either way and BV’s opinion will not affect things one bit. I’ll call CAS Sir/Ma’am regardless and my life won’t really be affected much regardless of their branch. BV |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10855947)
Many years ago, a very pleasant senior non-aircrew type came to discuss his report and to ask about retention etc. One topic which cropped up was the (can't remember what it was called as I avoided it) month long course at Henlow which JOs who couldn't out run the Boss were often collared for. I suggested that it would be less disruptive if the course could be between tours as it would have less impact on currency.
"What's currency", he asked. He was genuinely thankful for the explanation as he had no knowledge of 28 day currency requirements. I recall the name of one senior officer in charge of the flight safety magazine which we all thought was an April fool’s joke. He was an adminner named “I. R. Blunt”. If he was real, it’s a bummer of a name for someone placed in that position. :p |
And back to the title of AFPRB 20 - does anyone have any knowledge (or best guess) of when we can expect the ‘Pension Calculator’ to be updated this year? Not sure what the typical annual lag has been to be honest?
|
I have always thought that only aircrew get to see how all the other branches and trades contribute to the application of air power. Everyone makes their essential contribution and aircrew are exposed, to a greater or lesser extent , to all of their efforts but I doubt that , for example, a supplier has much appreciation of the work that air traffic control does or a rock that of an air battle manager.
|
Originally Posted by Party Animal
(Post 10856246)
And back to the title of AFPRB 20 - does anyone have any knowledge (or best guess) of when we can expect the ‘Pension Calculator’ to be updated this year? Not sure what the typical annual lag has been to be honest?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.