[quote=“sirvicalsmeer” post=10232]
or to put it another way, you mention it too much.[/quote]
Ouch!
Ok I have mentioned it a few times but only when relevant. A lot of what we do is connected to our parent service seeing as we wear their uniform etc.
Not sure how having a dig at me is helping but im guessing Angus maybe from north of the border and might be still hurting from last night (that was a joke before I get set upon!)
And let’s stay on topic please.
ACP4 specifically mentions people who treat cadets like regulars, and states it’s clearly not acceptable. I’m sure we’ve all come across people like these and wonder how they’ve managed to retain cadets with their attitude.
That said, we are a uniformed organisation, and we do have standards to maintain. All cadets join knowing that, and the vast majority take pride in their uniform and their appearance. As has been mentioned previously, do we really want people in the Corps who are going to turn up having put no effort into their appearance?
As a CI, I have very little interaction with cadets about their uniforms, although most of my cadets know I am a former CWO and for some reason find it easier (or less embarrassing?) to come to me for advice on how to iron/polish rather than the SWO. Occasionally, the SWO will ask me, along with the rest of the staff, what I think about standards (particularly if we’ve been at an event and he hasn’t) and, honestly, I’ve commented more on the lack of effort of certain members of staff than cadets, which I find disappointing. I am also a service association standard bearer, and it was noted on a recent parade that my shoes were better than my cadets’ and they have taken that as motivation to improve theirs up to the same standard as mine.
My attitude to myself as a CI is that, although I am not in uniform, I am still a part of the ATC and cadets will still be influenced by how much effort I put in. Therefore, if the cadets are in blues, I will generally be in a shirt (and tie). If they are in greens/sports kit, I will generally wear smart jeans and a squadron jumper. I have seen CIs who turn up in tracksuits, whatever uniform the cadets are in, or, dare I say, female CIs with more on show than is healthy around teenage boys, and it really frustrates me.
I recently referred to said ACP and can’t remember seeing anything specific.
Lots of can’t/shouldn’t do this/that/other and I imagine that there are probably things that happen to regulars that for any number of reasons we can’t do to cadets.
[quote=“RightOn” post=10243]My attitude to myself as a CI is that, although I am not in uniform, I am still a part of the ATC and cadets will still be influenced by how much effort I put in. Therefore, if the cadets are in blues, I will generally be in a shirt (and tie). If they are in greens/sports kit, I will generally wear smart jeans and a squadron jumper. I have seen CIs who turn up in tracksuits, whatever uniform the cadets are in, or, dare I say, female CIs with more on show than is healthy around teenage boys, and it really frustrates me.[/quote]Good post.
CIs who turn up looking like a bag of the proverbial - and it’s normally a twenty-something ex-cadet - really do grind my gears.
Well AP1358c has a uniform for CI’s which i find is rarely followed im not sure if there is a supply issue but if the uniform is not available its not hard to dress smart
Excellent post RightOn, thank you.
There has to be a sensible approach here. What I feel we often lack in the ACO is the input of Regulars to provide the ‘Service ethos’ that we should have as a military youth organisation (for want of a better term - please don’t criticise that description). This Service ethos will include dress standards and I honestly can’t see any difference between how we expect our cadets to present themselves in uniform and how the RAF expects its people to. What is unacceptable is anyone, ex Regular or otherwise, imposing what they believe to be the Service’s standards on people when in reality, they are imposing their own, often misguided and incorrect, interpretation of said standards.
I would not wish to generalise here, but in my experience, some of the worst offenders for being ‘over zealous’ are early twentysomething ex cadet CIs and LAC/SAC Service Instructors. The latter seem to derive particular joy from their status on an ATC Sqn compared to what they have in their day jobs. Please note that not all LAC/SAC SIs are like this and I’ve seen many who are entirely appropriate in their approach, but I’ve also seen many who are not!
I think there’s a big difference between expecting cadets to try uphold a similar ethos and standards as a ‘regular’* and treating them as if they were regular airmen. It’s all about approach.
Having said that, the life of the average regular airman is hardly the first half of ‘Full Metal Jacket’.
*why do ATC types talk about ‘regulars’? I genuinely don’t get it. Especially since when they say ‘regular’ they’re generally referring to airmen who could be regulars or reservists… isn’t it a symptom of the problem we’re talking about, ie: acting like cadets are in the Air Force, when they aren’t?
[quote= Tango Lima] I think there’s a big difference between expecting cadets to try uphold a similar ethos and standards as a ‘regular’* and treating them as if they were regular airmen. It’s all about approach.
Having said that, the life of the average regular airman is hardly the first half of ‘Full Metal Jacket’.
*why do ATC types talk about ‘regulars’? I genuinely don’t get it. Especially since when they say ‘regular’ they’re generally referring to airmen who could be regulars or reservists… isn’t it a symptom of the problem we’re talking about, ie: acting like cadets are in the Air Force, when they aren’t?[/quote]
Service Ethos is a very etherial thing and if you recall, I said that a sensible approach was needed, there are some elements we can apply in the ACO and others we can’t. Ex Regulars are better placed, although not uniquely placed, to provide that elusive Ethos
I’m not sure I understand your last sentence? A Regular is exactly that, a Reservist likewise. However, I entirely agree with your sentiment that we have some adult staff who like to treat cadets as though they are in the Service; in my experience though this tends to be, but is not exclusively, those adult staff who have never been a Regular!
By the way, I would not be surprised to learn that we had some Gunny Hartman types in the Corps!
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10257][quote= Tango Lima] I think there’s a big difference between expecting cadets to try uphold a similar ethos and standards as a ‘regular’* and treating them as if they were regular airmen. It’s all about approach.
Having said that, the life of the average regular airman is hardly the first half of ‘Full Metal Jacket’.
*why do ATC types talk about ‘regulars’? I genuinely don’t get it. Especially since when they say ‘regular’ they’re generally referring to airmen who could be regulars or reservists… isn’t it a symptom of the problem we’re talking about, ie: acting like cadets are in the Air Force, when they aren’t?[/quote]
Service Ethos is a very etherial thing and if you recall, I said that a sensible approach was needed, there are some elements we can apply in the ACO and others we can’t. Ex Regulars are better placed, although not uniquely placed, to provide that elusive Ethos
I’m not sure I understand your last sentence? A Regular is exactly that, a Reservist likewise. However, [b]I entirely agree with your sentiment that we have some adult staff who like to treat cadets as though they are in the Service; in my experience though this tends to be, but is not exclusively, those adult staff who have never been a Regular!
[/b]By the way, I would not be surprised to learn that we had some Gunny Hartman types in the Corps![/quote]
My bold.
I have to admit I have come across a few of these most of them tend to be Ex Cadets that couldnt get into the forces for one reason or another. I dont mean to say all Ex Cadets are like it because I know they are not
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10257]
I’m not sure I understand your last sentence? A Regular is exactly that, a Reservist likewise.[/quote]
Sorry. I’ll try to explain.
I often hear cadets and staff referring to ‘the way the regulars would do it’ or saying ‘that man is a regular’.
For me, that’s nonsense, because cadets and staff are not airmen, regular or otherwise. So when they say ‘regular’, they actually mean ‘airman’, and often the way they use it could in fact be referring to airmen who are regular or reservists (be that RAuxAF, RAFR, sponsored reserves or whatever…).
It just seems to be an expression of the idea, conscious or unconscious, that cadets/CFAVs are ‘in the RAF’. Which I would argue is an idea, conscious or unconscious, that causes a lot of the problems being talked about here.
I recently referred to said ACP and can’t remember seeing anything specific.
Lots of can’t/shouldn’t do this/that/other and I imagine that there are probably things that happen to regulars that for any number of reasons we can’t do to cadets.[/quote]
Sorry, I recalled incorrectly. It was the email announcing the amendments which mentioned this in the bullying summary, not ACP4 itself. I stand corrected.
When I was a cadet NCO, we had two male CIs on the squadron who wore the polo shirt and the jumper, but I’ve not seen anyone wearing them since I’ve returned and I’m not even sure of their availability. As you say, though, it’s not hard to dress smartly or appropriately.
As a brief aside, I should point out that I am a twenty-something ex-cadet. I know that most of the offenders are, but not all of us who fit that description turn up looking like a bag of the proverbial 
[quote=“tango_lima” post=10259]
It just seems to be an expression of the idea, conscious or unconscious, that cadets/CFAVs are ‘in the RAF’. Which I would argue is an idea, conscious or unconscious, that causes a lot of the problems being talked about here.[/quote]
We ARE in the RAF, or at least we are part of it. Officers are by virtue of the commission they hold, everyone else because they are part of an organisation formally sponsored by the RAF. We wear its uniform after all.
I agree with you though that the concept of us (all ACO members) being part of the RAF causes problems. You only have to read some of the posts on ACC to realise that several of our uniformed cadre think they are not part of the Service and that its regulations therefore need not apply.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression from your comments that you feel we should be ‘less like the RAF’? I honesty think that if this were the case we’d lose a lot of the appeal that the ACO has. Clearly there has to be a sensible application of this ‘Service Ethos thing’ I have mentioned before, but in my view, we need more of it - sensibly applied - not less.
As a brief aside, I should point out that I am a twenty-something ex-cadet. I know that most of the offenders are, but not all of us who fit that description turn up looking like a bag of the proverbial :)[/quote]To clarify, I mean that when it happens, it’s normally a twenty-something ex-cadet - not that twenty-something ex-cadets normally look like that!
Hell, I’m a twenty-something ex-cadet after all, and I can dress myself properly when in civvies!
For a little bit of personal clarity when I use the term regular I mean anyone who is serving full time, regardless of rank.
When people speak of reserves I tend to think “TA” or equivalent. However in modern parlance they are a bit more than the old ‘weekend warriors’.
Do ex-regulars still go onto the reserve lists for a period of time after demobbing? Although there are some older reserves who IMO having retired from full time service, can’t really cope with the real world and need the safety net of their former service life.
I feel the phrase Service ethos is one of those that is interpeted slightly differently by individuals. For me it evokes a sense of pride, belonging and working for each other, which are things we can all attempt to instill in our charges in the Corps, regardless of our background.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10264][quote=“tango_lima” post=10259]
It just seems to be an expression of the idea, conscious or unconscious, that cadets/CFAVs are ‘in the RAF’. Which I would argue is an idea, conscious or unconscious, that causes a lot of the problems being talked about here.[/quote]
We ARE in the RAF, or at least we are part of it. Officers are by virtue of the commission they hold, everyone else because they are part of an organisation formally sponsored by the RAF. We wear its uniform after all.
I agree with you though that the concept of us (all ACO members) being part of the RAF causes problems. You only have to read some of the posts on ACC to realise that several of our uniformed cadre think they are not part of the Service and that its regulations therefore need not apply.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression from your comments that you feel we should be ‘less like the RAF’? I honesty think that if this were the case we’d lose a lot of the appeal that the ACO has. Clearly there has to be a sensible application of this ‘Service Ethos thing I have mentioned before’, but in my view, we need more of it - sensibly applied - not less.[/quote]
The ATC is part of the RAF and its officers are in the RAFVR, but the cadets, SNCOs and CIs aren’t.
I don’t disagree with your conclusions at all, but I’ll stick to my position that the ATC would be better served by reverting to the insignia/uniforms/etc used by the ADCC, to highlight the fact to everyone that, while the ethos and standards of the ATC are informed by those of the RAF, the cadets are ATC cadets and not RAF airmen.
I’ve seen plenty of people (and you mention a couple of examples I’ve experienced) who can’t see further than the blue uniform and get a bit ‘raaarrrgghhh’ for want of a better description.
That aside, I’ll settle for ATC types not referring to airmen as ‘regulars’ (and thereby implying that they are ‘irregulars’ or reservists or auxiliaries or whatever).
Although, points to note, CAP are the ‘official auxiliary of the USAF’ - however, that carries responsibilities far beyond what the majority of ATC are willing to take on (in my experience) - and, in a lot of cases, I find that those who complain about ‘cadets being treated like regulars’ have never served and so they actually have no idea how ‘regulars’ are treated.
It’s usually less a case of ‘treating cadets like regulars’ and more one of ‘staff member/senior cadet behaving like a cartoon DI because they think that that’s what military leadership is and other staff members not knowing any better because they think Bad Lads Army was a fly on the wall documentary’.
In theory, yes…
One of the irritating things about the cadet usage of ‘regulars’ is the number of times I’ve been at some event to have someone saying ‘look at those regulars over there’ or ‘maybe those regulars can tell us where it is’ while indicating a group of TA. :blink:
Seems blatantly obvious to me that your issue is that people don’t see YOU as a regular since you are a part timer on 4624/501. You need to get a grip fella.
Depends on length of service.