Are you sure it’s been approved? I’ve seen them.
yes - 2 last week and I cant see a number anywhere - atho’ I accept this may be just me!
The reference number is on the ‘card’ under ‘My Events’.
I can’t see ever needing to use the registers in “real time” at the squadron. We have fire register that is completed every night, that gets updated when people arrive or leave. The SMS register is not dynamic in that sense and we are just inputting these for some minion at Cranwell to get excited about. I can’t ever say I’ve used them other than as an unpaid data input clerk for HQAC.
If cadets or staff are in uniform or “correctly dressed” is irrelevant, the fact they are at the squadron and getting involved is the single most important thing. I would sooner have a cadet or member of staff attending than not and then not potentially being penalised in the minds of someone who has not the first idea. But then who knows the reality once the box is ticked and do they care. Of course I can imagine being criticised for this line of thinking. It is interesting the old registers were just attendance registers and now we have gone to something which implying we are more than what we are. The registers could be made much, much more simple and just be a simple ‘yes/no’.
Not so.
What happens when that cadet or staff applies for promotion for example? Isn’t it handy to have recorded entries to back you up when you say “You’re not getting promoted because you’ve turned up incorrectly dressed for 98% of the last 6 months…”
For example.
We used to often hear the parallel argument about recording people as AWOL… “They don’t HAVE to be here so they should never be AWOL, blah blah blah…”
I call nonsense on that as well. If someone has the maturity, integrity and decency to explain their absence then they are listed as AA; if they just don’t turn up and don’t bother to account for it then they’re AWOL (or just plain old A now).
I’d do the same with dress. If they routinely just turn up incorrectly dressed with no reason then that’s not a good indication of personal commitment or integrity.
If on the other hand they have a good reason and have the decency to come and chat then I’ll be recording them as correct.
I like to be able to look at such stats when considering promotions, Best Cadet awards, &c.
1 Like
Had that last week with our biennial inspection. Two LCpls didn’t show and didn’t send apologies. They are now back to being Cadets as they showed a lack of respect to the contingent. (Should add this was an event during the school day, at the school, and the head had cleared absences from all lessons except mandatory practicals in science)
Firstly I tend to know who is or isn’t at the squadron. Secondly as for their “dress” I like to be more pragmatic and not the dogma expounded around the organisation. I have cadets who go to colleges that are a serious journey from where we are and if they miss or have trains and or buses cancelled, are you suggesting they are penalised for turning up in college wear, or staff who come straight from work and don’t wear suits. I don’t wear suits or ties etc for work and when I go straight from work, I might not look like someone’s preconception. When our children were younger many was the time they all had to in different places at the same time, so while my wife would have taken them, I’d pick one or more up, get them home and go straight to the squadron. I did this once and the Wg Cdr peeled up (he was going to another sqn and wanted to ask me about something) while I was sitting there in shorts and t-shirt, tucking into sausage and chips, he was not bothered in the slightest. I said what had happened and his response was at least you’re here. But then he knew how the world worked.
I use the fire registers for attendance and if used the SMS version it would make no difference as I would be using the “incorrectly dressed” option like I never used AWOL. The notion of AWOL, suggests that as OC I have the power to grant/deny leave from the ATC, I do not and if I tried it, I would expect at least complaint or more likely “get stuffed”, I won’t be here anyway.
When it comes to cadet promotions, I speak to the other staff and if there are concerns they are raised and discussed, but we all have a good idea who is and isn’t up for it. Staff applications what they do before has no bearing.
Well thank you, that’s tickled me 
In other news… Do you actually READ anything written or do you just react to what you think you’ve read?
I’ll just briefly précis my post… In fact, no I won’t - I’ll just re-quote exactly what I said:
“Sorry I’m not in uniform guys… straight from work” - Correctly Dressed
“Sorry I’m not in uniform Sir…xyz” - Correctly dressed.
“Where is your uniform Bloggs?”
“What? I dunno…” - Incorrectly Dressed.
aha - cheers!
As I said the register should be a simple record of who is and isn’t there, which is how I’ve used it and will continue to use it. Doesn’t make it much for HQAC minions, faffing around with MI and some it seems CFAV. Bear in mind all the time all the information put onto SMS is for HQAC etc, we are no more than unpaid data input flunkies and have been wrt SMS since its introduction.
The problem with information is, give people too much and they feel they need to use it. I have never seen the need to use the info on SMS once it’s on, past looking up something like DOBs, phone number, address etc if people aren’t at the squadron.
I still don’t get the relevance of “correctly” or “incorrectly” dressed on a register and what bearing it has on anything. The single most important thing is they attend as staff so they are able to do whatever needs to be done and cadets so they are able to participate, they should not be “penalised” in any way on SMS. Anyone in this organisation who doesn’t think the same needs to take a breath. By all means have a word with cadets if it happens more than twice in a row, but more to see if things are OK. The suggestion of “dunno” could be linked to something else, given kids are never overly forthcoming. If I don’t do registers as per some people’s thinking, does it matter, will I get a visit from someone and what are they going to do?
It’s really not. Of the 4 OC Sqns/Ex OC Sqns on the VSDT, we all
-
Thought the old system was confusing and needed simplifying
-
Would make/have made use of the Correctly Dressed/Incorrectly dressed functionality to use as an accurate reflection of a cadets uniform over time.
There is literally nobody at HQAC who cares about what uniform folk are in. HQAC reports only use Total Strength and Parade strength and even then, only on a quarterly average
6 Likes
We don’t capture anything more than presence, so I do not have more than that to enter into the SMS register, nor do I particularly care. We aren’t so large that we don’t see when people don’t show up in uniform when expected and can manage that “offline”.
I’d take it further and lose “AA”. I was an advocate for binning AWOL but it lingers in the difference between A and AA. I consider all absence to be Authorised and that should be the default state, only existing as a radio button on SMS so that we can correct input errors. It is nice to know in advance though.
So, looking at the whole attendance module now:
-
I would only have A, PC, PI - in that order, with everything marked as A at the start. This allows me to tab down the line and use arrows right and left to select the status of each cadet.
-
Cadet Portal pre-booked absences would just provide the reason for absence (mandatory) which would show on the field to the right of the options in SMS. This would include “duty absences”
-
The printed version of the register would just need Surname, Forename, Present. I would stretch “present” to PC & PI as that can be potentially useful. The rest of the space could be for notes, which could include the pre-booked absence reason. I truly doubt we need the CIN on that bit of paper.
I think you’re being harsh here
the comment
my bold - would i rather people turn up out of uniform, or not turn up at all??
clearly the first one, as discussed above, there are several reasons why this might be. but as priority number 1, as a first target, as my first goal, would be for people (Staff and Cadets) to want to turn up.
after then it is time to discuss why there is a lack of uniform being worn, a discussion and conversation - it may be a valid reason, a missed bus for example.
but as a “single most important element” for me would be persons attending - without attendance there is nothing to build on
(just for clarification, i don’t disagree with the further points discussed about questioning why persons should be rewarded if they are constantly out of uniform, but lets get them through the door first…)
2 Likes
No one is arguing that cadets should not attend at squadron parade night if they are incorrectly dressed . . .
We are recording AA, PC and IC as future stats to support our own decisions about a cadet, be that a promotion or award etc.
As WDImagineer2b says, it provides as view back through parade histories of old about a cadets personal commitment and integrity.
Sure, most active staff will have a good idea of who they think should be promoted, or receive an award, but that gut feeling can also be backed up bu stats that we have recorded on Bader.
I think the takeaway is that different people use it in different ways that serve whatever purpose they want to.
So really, the current system works well as an all things to all people.
Personally, we do adopt a distinction between between AA, DA, and “A” (as it is now). These days I’m less fussed about uniform and our usage has been sketchy - brought about because our SNCOs are sometimes unable due to the colleges/courses they’ve chosen and it’s not fair on them and therefore not fair to hold others to a different standard. We currently find it easy enough at the moment to hold a mental impression of if someone is regularly out of uniform. If we grow much more then that might change and we’re gradually growing staff and “class/group” numbers which will complicate how much direct contact we might each have with individual cadets… So it might be that we prefer to record this more strictly via registers in the future.
The reason I like having the “uniform or not” and AA or AWOL options is that this will have an impact on promotions. Now it’s easy to say “yeah but you will remember” firstly that depends on the size of your unit.
But more importantly promotions should be quantifiable and auditable I’m case little Johnny’s mum goes running to Wing, having the actual stats makes it far easier to do than just going “well he seems to turn up in civvies a lot”.
1 Like
I don’t think I was being harsh at all.
I too would prefer people to attend in civies rather than not at all, but that doesn’t make the option to record “correctly dressed” irrelevant in any way.
Teflon said it’s irrelevant - I said “not so” and went on to explain why. In what world is that a harsh response?
2 Likes
because, imo Teflon used the phrase “the single most important thing”
i’d rather people turn up than not turn up regardless of uniform.
there are then follow up discussions about dress.
you seem to indicate that turning up is not enough, it must be in uniform
i am not opening the door to this (my bold) either, but they have to turn up first to then have their uniformed status recorded
I think you’re making something out of nothing there…
Well, yeah… As a uniformed organisation they should be turning up in uniform.
I’m not going to turn them away but the standard should be to attend in uniform at all times wherever possible.
I think you’re wandering dangerously close to “doing a Teflon” here and reacting to what you think I’ve said rather than what I have actually said…
What I have actually said is:
…But I’d prefer even more that they attend in uniform.
1 Like
i would say i am being too literal perhaps, or reading the line in its own simplicity.
I am not indicating that what you say is wrong, or disagreeing with any other points you raise. but in the simplicity of the statement i thought, in my opinion, you were being harsh…