Out of curiosity, who writes and then signs-off ACTOs? I understand ACPs come from us, which is why we can now deviate from RAF uniform standards, but I’m not sure if we write ACTOs then send for sign-off, or if they’re imposed upon us.
1 Like
Very much this, as Commandant said last night, he can bid for extra money (he referenced this in the publicly funded brroadband segment) but the reality is these bids are often refused.
ACTOs are written by RAFAC, but any decisions within them have to be supported by the relevant area/person within the wider CoC.
Of course it is.
Especially for a 1*
AND
Even more especially when taking into account we couldnt interupt or ask Qs live. On camera.
1 Like
The country as a whole is broke, the MOD has a budget shortfall of £16.9billion!..what do we (the RAFAC) expect??? Budgets are being cut EVERYWHERE regardless of MOD/Government/Civvie Street in the UK and worldwide. Value for money and efficiently is the driving force across the whole world, not just the RAFAC. If you don’t think you are being appreciated as a Volunteer by being paid enough then find another pretty well paid (VA) hobby that you get some cash in your pocket for doing. Simples.
With the immature and personal attacks that get posted by some of the meme pages? That’s not a level of pressure or treatment that they signed up for.
1 Like
Thank you, I suspected that was the case.
So in essence, any senior RAFAC personnel using ACTO 35 as a reason why we can’t undertake assurance activities of a private flying provider is just saying “we say we can’t use private providers” rather than us actually being blocked from doing so?
1 Like
I’m amazed drone flying wasn’t mentioned last night… Or if it was, I missed it.
It was briefly.
2 Likes
That is a good summary, thank you.
Will there be an official ‘read out’ of the call as I want to share with my CivCom and staff who were unable to dial in?
It was, but clearly it flew over your head…
1 Like
Yes, apparently the recording will be released in the new year along with a written document outlining all that was discussed.
Well played.
What was said? I don’t remember it at all!
They’ve prepared a code in conjunction with 2FTS and the CAA. Likely to launch in the new year. They’ve also applied for grants for equipment
1 Like
It’s not that simple though is it, because we don’t have a proper system for claiming expenses nor are we issued with all of the equipment that we need to volunteer, nor is travel reimbursed at the going rate.
You might offer something that doesn’t cost anything or you might be financially secure enough that you can afford to be out of pocket. Most of us are neither of these things and therefore VA is actually quite important.
If the organisation were to provide everything I need to deliver my activities, pay for my travel at the going rate and cover my other expenses they might find it costing significantly more than £113 per day.
If they can no longer afford to do that then maybe they need to find an alternative way to deliver the activity?
4 Likes
That will be impressive given they only started advertising for the primary posts last month!
But fingers crossed. I look forward to being able to use RC aircraft outside once again!
No, ACTO 35 is written by RAFAC but the decision to block private providers sits outside of RAFAC. ACTO 35 is just the mechanism of communicating it to the organisation.
Arguably, ACTO 35 was the mechanism where HQAC allowed us to use 3rd party providers. It was only when those outside of HQAC questioned it that it got revoked. This one is very much sitting with risk holders in the higher RAF, not HQ.
It is seriously frustrating though that we are still held to these sort of MOD policies. Also looking at how we hire transport. Same problems!
As an SI I don’t get paid anything for escorting cadets: not even travel expenses.
2 Likes
That it will happen (good)
No commitment to timescales (a bit frustrating!)
2 Likes
Ideally I need something I can send out this week, if not this year.
I will use @Ben_Wakefield’s summary and my notes!