And we expect them to keep paying subs, too…
2 Likes
Indeed; another valid point.
At least we’re not the Civil Air Patrol - their staff pay subs too, AFAIK.
1 Like
To be fair, there is no reason that you could decide, as a Sqn, that over 18 cadets no longer pay subs, and subsidise their subs from the under-18’s.
True enough.
Update: Trial to commence 1 Dec 2019, 1 county per brigade. No more details as of yet.
2 Likes
I only hope that they male it something worthwhile and an achievement and not the FUBAR they’ve made of Staff Cadet in the ATC.
very useful however disagree with the differences between a Staff Cadet and CFAV based on how the RAFAC operate
namely
that wording, as i have been told, taught and led to believe is exactly the same for RAFAC Staff Cadets.
just because they carry a F3822 doesn’t mean they are any less responsible than the next Staff member - this point is pushed home to them on their transition to O18 that there is a legal expectation upon them as adults.
or am i mistaken??
I don’t believe there is an automatic legal suggestion that they hold the same (or a similar) level of responsibility as CFAVs just because they have turned 18. They are still cadets i.e. service users, and we are the staff responsible for delivery. We all had to voluntarily accept the legal responsibility.
In the same way Staff Cadets can choose to accept a similar level of responsibility, or they can indeed choose not to.
Until they are exercising a qualification to supervise others.
but that does not excuse us from turning a blind eye, or O18 Cadets, if something wrong is happening.
if we do nothing, whatever it might be, we are guilty as the offending party by not stepping in surely?? else what point is there making a fuss about O18s if they can simply waive any legal responsibility why not continue Cadet service until 20 by default with automatic waiving of adult responsibility for those O18 (and of course telling them that despite being adults, they are not expected to be acting in as adults as their responsibilities have been waived?
Turning a blind eye would be a problem for us - having accepted the extra legal responsibility.
However an 18 year old cadet who has not accepted that extra responsibility would only be covered in law to the same extent as any other “reasonable person”.
I do not believe that they would have any specific extra responsibility as a supervisor simply because they’ve turned 18. It doesn’t for instance make them automatically as culpable as a CFAV, in just the same way that Joe Bloggs - not a CFAV - walking down the street isn’t.
That is, in effect, exactly what we do.
They can continue until 20 without taking any additional legal responsibility. If they want the added role they have to accept it.
The “fuss” is made because if they do accept then we can utilise them as additional staff-type cover which brings an extra benefit to the Corps. They can then take responsibility for supervising cadets in certain circumstances which they couldn’t do if they don’t “sign on the dotted line”.
now i have missed this.
i thought the “opt out” option was for elements (such as supervising Cadets) except legal responsibility as an adult.
As an example, little Johnny goes to an O18 and says they are being abused at home and that O18 “opted out” does that mean that adult can react differently to a CFAV?
Or a more common example, sees some junior cadets larking about in a dangerous manner, can a O18 who has “opted out” be cleared of responsibility if it is known they were in the proximity/witnessed (or even joining in with) the behaviour and didn’t step in?
seems pretty pointless indicating these O18 are both Staff and Adults, if they can opt out. what benefit is in it for the Cadets to “opt in”?!
Well now…
Whilst digging for a quote I have noticed something.
Whilst they do have to explicitly opt-in to service by signing the pers form, I’m not sure that what we have been told by HQ is at all correct.
Having read it all again just now I note that the regulations in ACP 20 and the wording on the form itself (more on that in a moment) do not make a distinction between staff cadets who have accepted additional responsibility and those have haven’t. - We were specifically told there were two options.
It does in fact appear that continued service as a staff cadet would require them to sign.
This is definitely not how it was originally advertised, nor how it has been handled in our wing.
I remember distinctly the direction from OC Wg that they can continue if they have the “value add” element and they can either choose to take on additional “supervisory” responsibility beyond that or not.
I’m now not actually convinced that is what the regulations support.
Now, back to the form. I’d not noticed before just how badly it is written…
It starts out by informing them:
…and it then goes on to require them to sign a declaration that they don’t have a criminal record and they they will inform their OC if they get one (in précis); that they’ve read and understood ACP 4; and that they understand it is forbidden for them to have a relationship with staff or under 18 cadets.
The way it is worded, none of that is actually them signing for additional responsibility - despite what we were originally told by HQ.
I’d have to read the relevant Acts to see if simply “being notified” in this instance is legally binding.
It’s an interesting point and I’d like to come back to it.
This is what happened until the LASER review looked at the Children’s Act and found that all over 18s had to be cleared. Cadets reached 18 and carried on being cadets, regardless of rank or classification, even for those of us who were CWOs to 22 (in the good old days) there was no implied or expected assuming of additional “adult” responsibilities, you just ticked along being a cadet.
Now why in 2003 for over 18s it wasn’t applied as do CRB (formerly DBS) and just carry on to 20 will probably never get answered, as all those responsible for the LASER Review are probably no longer in the Corps. But this would have removed all this nonsense we have now for cadets wanting to stay over 18. If they didn’t pass the DBS/CRB bye-bye, if they passed just carry on to 20 and decide what to do.
As it stands I am still convinced we need to end cadet service at 18 and bring them into full adult service as CIs and end this half-way house “cadet / adult / cadet” situation that has been created. When I’ve mentioned this at staff conferences and with WSOs the party line is one of twitchy sphincters about losing cadets. Which when it is dug into a bit, seems to revolve around an implication that the thought of not being in a uniform is too much for 17 year olds who think they cannot function in the ATC without one. My view if that’s what they think, then they definitely need a spell of no uniform, just to re-ground them.
I was at the time and still am fully behind the idea of making them staff at 18.
I’ve worked a lot with the SCC and it seems to work well for them. It’s particularly noticeable in joint events where SCC 18 and 19 year olds are staff with the rest of us but our young adults are still under the restriction of being a cadet.
My experience of the current model of staff cadet is that most of them who want to stay are keen to have more “staff type” roles. They are interested in the courses and qualifications (such as AT) which they could do as staff anyway.
The idea was to keep them as cadets so that they are still eligible for “cadet” events… But really, I’m not sure how much difference it makes.
I was wholly unamused to see the way they created that badly-worded “survey”. The whole thing was very clearly geared (whether knowingly or not) to mislead cadets into selecting the “stay as a staff cadet” option which somebody had obviously already decided upon.
Yes I get that…
But what is in it for the Cadet to “opt in” at O18?
Once upon a time Cadet’s could be Cadets up to 21yrs11months and be “cadets” regardless of age
Then this was chsnged and they could be
1- up to 19yrs11months and be “cadets” regardless of age, no adult responsibilty (opting out)…although are called Staff Cadets once 18yrs
2 - up to 19yrs11months and be “Adult Cadets” (for want of a better phrase) picking up adult responsibilty (opting in) once they reach 18
In either 1 or 2 the approach to thede scenarios once 18 still puts them in a weird grey area of neither one or the other…even more so with 2.
I still can’t see the advantage in opting in for the Cadet if there is a choice to opt out…
Mine were all keen to opt in… They wanted additional responsibility and were keen to be part of the staff team - “a grown up” for want of a better term.
I have no doubt that if the survey had been properly written they’d have chosen the “staff at 18” option.
The survey wording was skewed to present cadets with 2 options:
“Leave at 18” or “Remain until 20 as a staff cadet”. It did not explain that if they ended cadet service at 18 the could become staff, so naturally many will have voted for “continue as staff cadet” rather than give it all up 2 years earlier.
1 Like
We still have the situation of cadets that stay past 18 enter this half-way house arrangement of being given adult responsibility when it suits the Corps and cadet when it didn’t and this was the case in 2003 and persists to this day. And there were caveats linked to rank and classification, like now, as to whether they could stay past 18, although now the BS is greater, with no real gain for them. I wonder how many potential staff the Corps has lost due this? This system as it is now is complete nonsense given we can get someone turn up at say 20 who has never been anywhere near us, go through the hoops and end up as whatever they get to.
I don’t see cadets who do instruction and so on any differently to how I see staff, they do what they can. I don’t put or have any other expectations.
The problem with cadets is they have to comply with all the staff BS AND still have “cadet” things to do, which IMO doesn’t really fit together. People talk about development etc, I’d love to send them on an event say swimming where there are only a few cadets to deal with and potentially help out in some capacity, and do it solo, like I like to see new CIs. This puts them into a position with responsibility, organising the cadets and dealing with things. But the cadets still have this “cadet” tag and get spoken to like cadets and have to respond like they are cadets, despite being there in an adult role. I watch it happen and it doesn’t seem right, as an adult wouldn’t get spoken to like that. We have 3 CIs at the sqn (ec cadets) who came through the new system between 2003 and 2010 and everyone of them has said when they were Staff Cadets, they never knew quite where they stood. On the sqn they had a better idea they were called by the Christian names like I do all staff and were treated like CIs (except for the uniform), but go on a camp and they were cadets when it suited and adult staff when it suited. Also being cadets in the eyes of the organisation and the RAF, they couldn’t be adults, unlike my time as an older cadet where on a Friday at camp you disappeared to a designated pub, either with the staff or a few quid from the CC to have a beer, as long as you didn’t come back 3 sheets to the wind.
I think the options should be similar to what they were pre-2003, where it was either
leave at 20
stay as adult staff
stay at 20 until you hit 22 if you were a CWO, see the first 2 options ie leave or stay as staff
and now
leave at 18
stay as adult staff
stay as a staff cadet at 18 until you are 20 then see the first 2 options, ie leave or stay as staff.
I knew and there are still people around who left as a cadet at 20 and became staff and I can’t see this as being different now if it was 18.
My personal preference would be leave at 18 become a member of staff on a 2 year (unrestricted probation) by default with recommendation from OC Sqn…none of this wing stuff at that level. At 20 decision is made to leave or let them carry on.
2 Likes
We would be better off getting the ATC’s current system working better instead of rethinking the concept over and over again. The real obstacles are staff ignorance or objection.
1 Like