I think that’s being unkind to the other RCs. Mine is quite open, honest and frank. Especially when it comes to getting answers from HQAC.
It just so happens RC (N) is staffing that page as part of what he took on.
1 Like
Bob, you maybe correct, but I don’t see any other RC opening a page on sharepoint to take on comments regarding their area of responsibility.
Those areas either aren’t being worked yet, or not as obvious.
RC(W&W) is tasked with remuneration I believe, but I heard they’re going to wait for the dust to settle with the CFC first before striking another blow…
RC(LASE) is an Engineer, so I think he’s responsible for STEM, which he’s set up some sort of STEM network.
You just made my point…
LASER RC is doing STEM so why no STEM page?
Doesn’t have to be a Full Q&A maybe some helpful pointers and a help desk with his team able to help answer, sqn based exercises etc
What I was getting at was RC(N)'s the spokesman, ie someone gives him something to say and he’s the one who says it, helps keep those directly responsible out of the limelight and prevent conflicting statements from different sections. I doubt even on VoV he’s able to really say what really should be said and it all gets moderated, so as to try an present a single front to appease people.
If there was a STEM page RC(N) would be the mouthpiece, given VoV seems to cover a broad church.
1 Like
Wind your neck in - You haven’t looked hard enough… SharePoint > HQAC Sub Sites > STEM Portal
4 Likes
Well that’s new from when I looked for it.
but my point still stands RC(n) is still the most visible and interactive
RC out there
The RAF version is on the ACC Drive, I think it’s the latest. Can’t speak for the 1358c though
Looks like they’ve now resolved to ignore the issue - @AlexCorbin’s question is yet to be acknowledged
1 Like
Read the response avout the CFC scrolls …god knows what happened there
1 Like
Probably stated it was a “Queen’s” commission, and had some other link to military so they panicked!
1 Like
Anybody happen to know if there is a single person responsible for the RACs? Have a question about the future of one and not sure where to direct it.
Let’s hope RC(W&W) hasn’t been talking to the Navy.
1 Like
Oh dear. I see someone has sent a slightly less happy comment on the forum. Makes some good points though, but it’s not like anything will actually change!
I would’ve thought the ARCs would be, unless they delegate to someone else
Response from RC(N).
Disappointing and moany again. I know the person was slightly moany first, but I think again he is forgetting that we are not all on a Gp Capt Wage. Again, the problem of having highly paid staff in charge of volunteers.
I found the RC(N)’s tone of the response not helpful and again, almost a slight verbal attack on volunteers!
2 Likes
Hillbilly say what what?
Who, in response to what?
Resend key, over…
in reaction to RC(N)'s reply on this forum
What frustrates me about the comments is it is said as if we (CFAVs) aren’t aware of the pressures and expect HQAC to pull magic out of a hat simply because they are paid while we are volunteers.
We know and understand processes take time, but it is frustrating to see further HQAC let down.
If there are higher priorities, and I am certain there are, when will we see these benefits to the Cadets??
on the subject of money, it is said look after the pennies and the pounds look after themself.
it would seem HQAC don’t want to consider the same approach with an admin task.
Priorities or not, whatever the task if a release date is suggested what confidence should the CFAV have in HQAC meeting them?
AP1358C
the Volunteer agreement “must sign by date”
The transition from VRT/ATC rank to RAFAC rank slides (and issue of the slides)
The introduction of the CFC and then the transfer of VRT to CFC
The issuing of PTS badges
The implementation of the PTS scheme
The return to gliding following a “pause”
a short list of tasks HQAC have worked on in recent times all with deadlines which have shifted not by days or weeks, but months or years.
In the pipeline we have heard whispers, loud in some cases of "out of pocket expenses" (F80 and F1771) money being claimed through SMS, with an end to paper forms.
We have heard volunteer allowance will closer reflect responsibility for events rather than simple by virtue of a "rank" held
I have even heard mention of a pause to new initiatives, processes, or systems, a pause of implementation of new policy or other changes and the suggestion HQAC would put into order what we currently have that is working poorly, before introducing another new burden for the CFAV to contend with.
I am not getting emotional over the delayed AP1358C, much more so what it represents - a discord between HQAC and the CFAVs on what is seen to be important and a "priority".
(like I say I am sure that there is higher priorities than AP1358c, some of them critical, however if HQAC is going to whet the appetite of the community it serves, it is unfair to daggle the carrot indefinitely).
I am sure those who are getting emotional about AP1358Cs delay could forgive and/or understand this if we saw other aspects progressing, unfortunately we don’t seem to see the balance shift in favour of other tasks and activities equal to the delay uncounted
The thing that I find bizarre is that most of the deadlines seem to be imposed by HQAC themselves, and they then don’t meet them…