As an old cone-head I am delighted to see that there are a healthy number of female officers who have chosen the "path of the cone" over the past few years. They have seen the light, decided to get a professional qualification which is highly valued both in the service and in civvy street - so much so that our own Institution of Royal Engineers is, quite rightly, making moves to emulate the professional accreditation systems established by the civilian engineering institutions.
My question is this; Why is it that there are at least 6 serving regular female PQE Majors who are apparently, repeatedly avoiding serving at 170 Infrastructure Support Engineer Group? Not one of them has done their bit at Chilwell during living memory!
Our highly valued volunteers in 65 have bucked the trend and lead the way when it comes to deploying female CEng officers to war zones - so why not the regular serving CEng officers?
Is there an APC policy not to post female PQEs to Chilwell?
Do APC lack the backbone required to post a female officer to one of the busiest and most operationally committed units in the British Army?
A cynic might say that female regular PQEs were war-dodging
- Not I though.
My question is this; Why is it that there are at least 6 serving regular female PQE Majors who are apparently, repeatedly avoiding serving at 170 Infrastructure Support Engineer Group? Not one of them has done their bit at Chilwell during living memory!
Our highly valued volunteers in 65 have bucked the trend and lead the way when it comes to deploying female CEng officers to war zones - so why not the regular serving CEng officers?
Is there an APC policy not to post female PQEs to Chilwell?

Do APC lack the backbone required to post a female officer to one of the busiest and most operationally committed units in the British Army?

A cynic might say that female regular PQEs were war-dodging

