When I was a scout I was in a unit that had essentially been amalgamated with another due to lack of staffing/resources. Both units maintained their separate identities but we ‘paraded’ as one on alternate weeks at each other’s buildings.
My pondering is whether this could work with units within the ATC who are struggling with cadet numbers, staff numbers, a lack of resources or any other myriad of things. Much like the current DF system but rather than the DF taking on the identity of the squadron they would maintain their old squadron number but with much greater support from a ‘parent squadron’ thereby becoming XXX (City of Somewhere) DF. The ‘parent squadron’ would provide what you’d expect of any squadron with a DF, especially but not limited to admin, providing activities and staff, but the DF itself would have some independence.
I’m imagining something along the lines of the way a number of Army Reserve units have been amalgamated becoming companies/squadrons of a regiment rather than standalone regiments in their own right.
It sounds good in theory.
There are a number of grey areas wrt this idea. Firstly as volunteers in a youth organistion you volunteer where you want to and that will be somewhere (normally) within easy travelling from your home, unless you decide to do otherwise, as such staff are not pawns to be moved around willy nilly at the whim of a Wing Staff Officer. I know that this can happen to some extent in the ACF often resulting in people binning it.
Also it’s not quite so simple as it sounds. For example the main squadron has for arguments sake 12 staff and it’s “DF” 5. Now if for arguments sake the 12 staff on the main sqn work various shift patterns and or have jobs which throw last minute and other such problems into the mix you may perm only 5/6 from that 12 on any one night and you might only have 2 or 3 who are able to attend regularly.
I’m in this sort of position. I have 11 staff and if I see any 5 of them on a night that’s a good night. I’ve got teachers, drivers, shop workers, office workers and a factory worker. We all work; a combination of shifts (that don’t align) or jobs that mean you are away on business or doing business in the evening and the teachers have their own set of problems as they are both on the SLT and get caught up in all sorts of rubbish. On paper 11 looks good, but the reality is no better than having 4/5. As such book numbers for staff are as they are for cadets. My WSOs come down and often ask where staff are and get incredibly terse answers.
Secondly the Corps’ systems are not geared up for people going to different squadrons, I know 2 young officers who did a 9 month stint at A N Other sqn for so called development and the transfer was promulgated when they were back at their original sqns. This created HTD mayhem and it took another 6 months to sort out the transfer to their original unit. I know one bloke transferred to Wing Staff and it took 18 months for the paperwork to wend its way through the system to get him off his old sqn’s books.
Rather than this you are better off having informal arrangements. We do things with 3 other units and the staff muck in.
Most DFs are autonomous, doing from what I’ve seen all their own activities, admin and some even have their own CWCs.
I don’t think you can compare us with reservists as described, unless they want to completely change the ToR for CFAV.
When it comes to staff strengths on sqns I’m never entirely convinced that Wing Staff and above have the first clue. This is a concern as Wing Staff have been on squadrons. I often have a feeling that above Wing the thinking is all sqn staff work 9-5 Monday to Friday and are able to attend all parade nights and weekends and don’t have a life outside the ATC.
My comment as regards reservists is purely to do with the idea of maintaining unit identities despite being amalgamated as opposed to staff being treated like reservists.
To me it seems that Wing Staff are very reluctant to ‘downgrade’ a squadron to DF status even if it doesn’t fulfill the criteria to be a squadron, perhaps this could help remove the stigma that’s associated with DF’s. I suppose the system I’m suggesting in a way is similar to ACF detachments and companies rather than anything that currently exists in the ATC.
Personally, I can’t see the point.
If a unit becomes a DF, why should they keep their old identity?
As a DF they are part of the parent Squadron.
1234 (Somewhere) Sqn might contain:
No 1 Flight,
No 2 Flight,
No 3 (Training) Flight,
(Somewhere Else) DF.
That’s just the way it works. They are a flight of the Squadron.
Whether being a DF has a stigma attached to it depends on which way it’s going… Brand New DF = Positive; Sqn downgraded to DF = Negative.
Nobody wants to downgrade a Sqn because it’s more work. If that squadron then has a big recruiting push and reaches 30+ again it’s even more work to upgrade them once more.
Blind eyes are turned. Why bother to reinvent the wheel in a more complicated way?
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=25328]Nobody wants to downgrade a Sqn because it’s more work. If that squadron then has a big recruiting push and reaches 30+ again it’s even more work to upgrade them once more.
Blind eyes are turned. Why bother to reinvent the wheel in a more complicated way?[/quote]
Too right; saw some figures for sqns in our Wing, 25% of our sqns are running below 30 cadets.
Remember in the old days when sqns had to watch their numbers because of the threat of downgrading to DF status. Do HQAC actually monitor sqn sizes, and do they actually reclassify sqn (Establishment Types) if they don’t meet the ‘3 consecutive period’ criteria as per PI101? How knows…
In Highland wing that is 93%
1 Welsh seems to be 50%
With the data in SMS I am sure HQAC have a better idea of the stats than they ever did.
The thing about scouts is they generally have more units - there are about 4 in my town and it is really only a medium sized town. In comparison, our nearest ACF unit is around 15 miles away.
In the ACF we don’t generally amalgamate units. We may share buildings if a unit loses their own and can’t get another, but they parade separately with their own instructors and staff. If a detachment is closed due to lack of numbers, it simply goes away and the remaining cadets and adults parade elsewhere.
i wonder if some of the reluctance to downgrade sqns to DF’s is the nightmare of finding people to run them…
i’ve experience/knowledge of 3 DF’s, and in each one when the Sqn was downgraded the previous OC (and to a greater or lesser degree the rest of the senior staff) left. the new parent Sqn, or wing, had to then find someone prepared to, in effect, be an OC of a unit with no staff and morale in the toilet. one DF eventually regained its Sqn status and former identity, another has been passed around two or three sqns - geography/population means it will never get to Sqn status and no one wants it, its a pain in the backside, and its treated like a penal colony for staff OC’s want rid of. no idea what happened to the other…
Perhaps, but what does it achieve, to what benefit and who benefits?
I’ve never really seen what downgrading a sqn to df actually achieves, other than pandering to an archaic and outmoded system / mindset. It is effectively a punishment for the staff/cadets for something that is entirely out of their control. You also punish the sqn that takes control of it taking over a downgraded sqn is a poison chalice.
As for benefit there aren’t any.
I’ve long held the view (since doing my Staff Cadet) that the establishments are set for an environment where you have a full time, salaried staffing and you are able to recruit or move people to fill the gaps.
Some may argue that a squadron with a lot of staff can afford to lose some, but can it? And in losing staff can it still deliver as it was or would it leave a hole that may be difficult to fill or never get filled? If we could put an advert in a paper inviting people to apply for a post then maybe, but we are all in the unpaid, spare time volunteer category, which isn’t something that gets people’s juices flowing, unless it’s something that appeals to them.
Downgrading to a DF is a bit like Staff moving to NEP…the beginning of the end in many cases…