Update: Just had an email chasing this from someone on the books of my new contingent. Apparently he left in 2016, having not completed OIC. I’ve just looked in the file and turns out we’ve sent in the resignation paperwork 5 times but he’s still on the books.
Looks like they are finally taking action against non-signers Can you imagine the large reduction in number of CFAVs on HQAC books?
if it is the same as you example, but the sounds of it the majority will be deadwood which HQAC have failed to cross off the books
True. But HQ will have been burying their heads in the sand and working on the basis that these were fully participating CFAVs when declaring how many adults are in the organisation
oh absolutely!
it would be interesting to know the numbers of those they are binning off, and the % of which who Unit OCs already considered as no longer staff!
I know of people recently suspended due to their form not being sent in despite it being sent in. Does seem to be happening.
Let the culling begin as far as I am concerned.
Cull dead weight no shows.
Then cull the Sqns that are clearly not viable.
Put their resources into the survivors.
This fetish that wings in particular have of protecting certain Sqns, in the long run, harms others.
Which where I live has left an inner city area of approx 200,000 people with no RAFAC Squadrons whilst the SCC and ACF continue to have units in these areas. The RAFAC has moved to the ‘nice’ lesser challengeing areas.
Will they though? If the remaining Staff walk or cannot attend next nearest Squadron, and Cadets do the same, what had this achieved, apart from freeing up some tables and chairs maybe?
Ah, but they won’t be new chairs so they’ll be no use
Stops wing poaching staff to support dying units.
Frees up flying slots.
More ammunition per cadet.
Wso’s more time per surviving unit.
More RFCA money per unit.
Cull cull cull.
Near me I have 3 units each with 3 or fewer cfavs and 10 or fewer cadets.
If we cull your unit and spread your resources to the other three, we can improve three squadrons!
I’ve already ‘loaned’ 4 staff to help two of those units.
When I asked to take them on as DFs the wing wasnt interested… as “they would never downgrade sqns”.
My point. As you well know, is that there are many Squadrons clinging on by a thread and costing other Sqns alot.
It just so happens all 3 near me are like that.
Perhaps their existing staff should have done something. Anything.
It’s a very short sighted view, yes some units are untenable and should be closed. But many others have Peaks and troughs, if you close all of those on troughs eventually you won’t have an organisation left.
My current unit went from being just 2 CI’s to having 5 uniformed staff and 5 CI’s with 60-70 Cadets. All of those staff bar me are home grown from Cadets and Parents.
We have 6 Sqns in a ten mile area and no real built up areas…I’m surprised they haven’t been merged into 3 yet…
This is likely to happen locally here too. The Squadron in a less affluent area is struggling desperately while another local Squadron, in a better off, more middle class area is thriving. I know where I’d want to move staff but volunteers aren’t keen, for many reasons.
Don’t assume that just because a unit is shut this means more for everyone else. Often higher level funding and allocation is based on unit numbers, not Cadet numbers, also the bean counters will always use the lowest number they can find to justify a reduction!
And this proves the point above, once downgraded to a DF, the funding and resources that Wing receives go down, trust me I’ve had these very discussions.
Very easy to say in a forum like this, but when you look behind the initial figures and face of it situation, often that is a long way from reality. A lot of Squadrons and Staff in the situation are desperately treading water and trying to just about keep their heads above water. What they have suffered is often a lack of support from higher up, and a system that does not help Squadrons with small staff numbers to operate, or indeed recruit new staff. Granted there are lazy Staff out there, but that isn’t the main problem.
Look also at the Cadet expansion programme, loads of money to setup Cadet units in schools, which then robbed from existing Cadet units of all services. Should that money have been spent helping struggling Squadrons to do more instead?
Totally and utterly correct and when you have a WSO working for RFCA establishing CCF units at the expense of community units, well say no more. There are people on here who know whom I am talking about.
One way to take the pressure off is to go down to one night a week.
Obviously yes!
@Paracetamol Do RFCA get a lump sum or is there a number of units they supposedly service capitation factored in, ie less units less money.
I would love to see the results of “the contract” non-signing bear fruit and see HQAC report the results. I think they like to live the lie about how many staff there are for report purposes only. The truth might bruise some egos up the chain.
I say and will continue to say that closing squadrons is not the way forward but a new way of working. It would be interesting to know where the ATC’s numbers game came from and why?
You don’t see that reflected in The Scouts. We can’t be the only area with a number of “Scout” groups tooth by jowl of varying sizes, that always seem to go on. The only thing that seems to matter is where to meet. Our village group currently has 3 Scouts and 10 Cubs and 9 Beavers. All meet independently and when I’ve spoken to the people running it, they are hoping that some of the younger ones “move up”, but that is not guaranteed. There seems to be an ethos of as long as young people engage they exist. No talk of closing or merging. Another nearby village group closed due to lack of adults. Those adults despite living no more that 5 miles from a number of groups haven’t moved to other groups and neither did the kids. So why we try and live with the idea that’s what staff and cadets will just do that if squadrons closed, mystifies me.
I don’t understand also why people seem intent on seeing units close. As @daws1159 suggests we all go through peaks and troughs and some squadrons settle at a level and remain there with slight ups and downs. I’ve experienced a squadron that had a membership of late 20s, massively spike to more than 70, but after a few years went back to it’s old level and has remained there. I don’t think the focus as it seems be how many, but delivering a decent experience. If that means a squadron does this with 15 cadets or a 100 cadets, so be it. These tend to staff themselves accordingly.
For a while, yes.
But these modern times let light in where once there were shadows. Public money - albeit at the smaller end of the wedge - has new heights of accountability and when numbers have universally fallen and frontline commanders are fighting for more resources, then cadets will come under renewed pressure to tighten up. ATC-HQ will be under pressure to hit cost/benefit ratios be it in the highlands or city centres.
Plus … I hear Mr Marr mention that the nice Mr Cummings apparently has the MOD firmly in his sights as a pet project for serious change…