Article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday - Education secretary thinks schools SHOULD do Rugby despite the risks, because it’s good for pupils to be exposed to risk.
Shame that attitude isn’t applied to cadet activities any more.
The Nature of Volunteering.
Throughout the last 2 years I have followed the posts concerning the " Gliding pause" on ACC, p.prune and the Comdt’s Facebook page with great interest. There is no doubt that the situation is far more complex than the, relatively, straight forward issue of repairing GRP airframes. The overlay of government imposed budget constraints, a new basing strategy for the RAF as well as complex contractual relationships will all have had an impact on the proposed solution. The future pattern for air cadet flying has now been announced and I, for one, doubt that there will be much variation from the general direction of travel. Many will argue that this new direction will lead to the demise of the RAF Air Cadets;I do not share that view. The organisation will be different but everything in life changes over time.
I have often read that full time professionals engage with logic while volunteers engage with their emotion. While this may be a gross oversimplification it has more than an element of truth (witness the personal attacks on the Comdt and OC 2FTS). While many will not agree with the decisions that have been made they have been made by those, throughout the RAF, paid to do so. As volunteers we are all therefore left with a choice, suck it up and provide the best opportunities we can for cadets or step aside and let someone else take the reins, That being said if the RAF Air Cadets is to flourish and grow in the future it has to generate an understanding of the nature of volunteering than has been sadly lacking throughout the “pause”. Within all squadrons(whether air or ground based) there is a massive reserve of experience of delivering to cadets. Harness that experience and the volunteer will feel valued, continue to ignore it and the best delivery plan will come to nothing. A number of years ago I attended a conference at Cranwell where one of the speakers described the difference between Command and Control and Command and Enable. If the RAF Air Cadet organisation is to maximise the talents of the volunteer to deliver the cadet experience into the future I know which one I think would be more successful.
In a round about way that is what I was getting at.
The current and last CAC were as far as I can tell are adminners and the current one retired and then came back for “a nice little earner my son”.
Not too sure where the others have been or what they have done, but managing and responding to the needs and requirements in a group as diverse in many different senses as CFAV and 30000 or so teenagers, I doubt it.
Following on ref budgets and volunteers…
I was at a National Trails conference on Saturday and learned that their budgets have been cut by over 55% in the last five years.
Their activities (e.g.signage, trail maintainance)) have only marginally reduced . They have always extensively used volunteers and the full time paid staff coordinate activities. Volunteers do most of the practical and admin work and specialist skills are highly valued. Some full time staff have not been replaced when they have left. They have been ‘smarter’ with the budgets they have and regularly look for grants etc for specific projects. As the chairman said…‘the government is bust and one shouldn’t depend on them anymore’.
Food for thought ref the ACO and time to move on methinks. Maybe some of the paid jobs should only be done by ex volunteers and people who can think outside the MOD ‘box’.
[quote=“sypland, post:942, topic:1152, full:true”]Food for thought ref the ACO and time to move on methinks. Maybe some of the paid jobs should only be done by ex volunteers and people who can think outside the MOD ‘box’.
[/quote]
As long as the paid jobs have full authority to do things, decide what needs to happen and make it happen and not have the ideas and then get interference from above, saying no as they aren’t able to cope with the sort of thinking suggested.
A couple of old days COs I personally keep in touch with have said they wouldn’t do the job today if they were paid a King’s ransom, as the RAF is too involved and they never did (and still don’t) understand the ATC, or not at least since the heady days of WW2 when they drew heavily on cadets from the Air Training Corps as RAF personnel.
That goes as far down through the system as ACLO at RAF Stations. It is usually their tertiary or (and here I would use the clever word for fourth, but I don’t know it) duty and they never have time to do it. Indeed finding an ACLO can be demanding as they are usually away on a course, on leave, or “we haven’t appointed one since the last on was posted”. Not always, of course, and some are very helpful, but still strapped for time.
Perhaps ACLO should be an ACO volunteer appointment? It would relieve the RAF of a job and there would be someone who stayed and cared. Not necessarily VR(T) either, a CI would in some ways be better able to actually liaise with everyone.
I forgot. I am thinking outside the box again.
1 Like
that is more burden on the volunteer though…running around/on the phone making arrangements…
Years ago Northolt had a deputy ACLO who was a WO in the corps…
I think though he kind of moved into the mess for… Anytime anyone was on station although he lived 15mins away
Although maybe in the long run, less of a burden. I have often spent ten times as long try to get an ACLO to do something than it would have taken me to do it myself.
I think a lot of us think that the less the overworked and uninspired regulars have to do with it the better.
One volunteer is worth 10 pressed men
Someone has started a “Save UK Air Cadet Gliding” petition, hopefully this will get enough to actually be discussed by MPs
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/124333
true, but its about putting round pegs in round holes - if the ACO has people, and with 10,000 staff it probably does have people, who could do the job and who want to do the job, then i fail to see the issue.
even if each region manages to find 3 or 4 people who’se lifestyle and skills fit the role, you could easily argue that they would happily compliment - or lets be honest, do a better job than - almost exclusively very junior officers who have 3 other more important jobs and who get whizzed about the RAF’s footprint like their feet are on fire.
we happily accept that VGS’s (sorry, i had to get that one in…
) and the SATT’s etc… are perfectly valid ways for people to contribute that are outside the traditional ‘turn up to a local Sqn 2 nights a week’ pattern, so why not other roles, particularly when those currently providing those roles very obviously have either no resources to dedicate to them, or no inclination to do so?
Yeah, because those work! Ha!
This is because your WHQ insist on only flying 6 months of the year and in the Autumn/Winter periods when the weather is the worst!!
A Sunday so limited in some ways, which is unfortunate. Which airfield?
A radar service which would not have prevented the Tutor on Glider mid-air:
para 2.6.3) though it might have prevented the previous midair.
Absolutely, looking out of the window works much better, indeed the aircraft that remained in the circuit (because they were denied a radar service) were relying on “see and be seen”.
No, but unfortunately the regulations mean risk has to be mitigated according to who is in the aeroplane. Post '09, and consequent developments, the rules have been set. The aeroplane is also now more capable - with TAS any sqwarking aircraft can be picked up (so most GA and some gliders) and FLARM has also been introduced. The sliding scale unfortunately means cadets need a radar service, although “front line” Tutor ops don’t necessarily.
All of it can be read across to all forms of cadet flying.
As for see and be seen in the circuit - the nature of the circuit means the aircraft positioning is more predictable and our friend TAS will also provide an added layer protection and SA.
Starting to hit the press
What was the annual gliding budget when things were running normally? I seem to remember £6M being bandied about before we had worries about mass repairs or replacements. Do any savings we will incur (if there will actually be any savings) count as “peanuts”?
We still need to wait for the MOD basing review to come out and to see how many of our former venues would have been snatched from under our feet. The changes we have made might even have made the difference between life and death to some locations we will still use.
So, this being the case, why would anyone want to concentrate more aircraft in one area? Apart from the increased collision risk because there would be more aircraft in a small area, you have the further problem of a restriction in the number of aircraft that can have radar control at any one time.