I was just going from the context of the doc. I really do think it’s talking about wider societal resilience being something that needs to be increased. And we fall into that. This bit, specifically:
Based on the 2024 MoD Sponsored Cadet Forces Stats, we’re currently around 140 000 cadets. Essentially doubling the number io cadets is a big ask.
2 Likes
Realistically we would need to triple thr CFAV base to deliver that experience too.
Doubling casets on this head count would kill the org
10 Likes
We’d need to change the model for CFAVs. Probably a tough ask given HMG is also looking to expand the Reserves.
We’d need to focus on a different demographic to the ex cadet in their early 20s as our main recruitment pool.
4 Likes
If they really want to expand us as much as they are saying, and think that it’s a critical part of our long-term defence strategy, then we’re surely at a point where certain roles should become FTRS. For example, OC Wings, regional SMEs etc. If not FTRS then move over to the RFCA model similar to the ACF.
I’d support that. We need more paid staff. If we could move to a point where CFAVs can focus on delivering activities and focus less on admin and managing other volunteers, that would be great. Idealy, find great volunteers and see if we can recruit them into full time roles?
8 Likes
Another issue with all this is that the activities we have staff trained in and let’s be honest interested in delivering doesn’t match with the heavy shift to STEM that they are talking about. So you either need to provide hardcore staff training or a wire more staff.
I have no interest in becoming a STEM instructor.
8 Likes
I wouldn’t mind teaching more stem stuff. I’m an engineer at the end of the day… But we just lack any proper framework to deliver it.
We’re the RAFAC. We should be designing and building our own drones and rockets. Playing with CAD, 3D printers etc. I think that could be great, and in fact some units are very much doing that. But it’s not something that has a proper syllabus from HQ.
But I do engineering stuff all day everyday. I do enjoy going to cadets to teach AT adjacent stuff as it’s a nice change.
4 Likes
snap.
and as much as i can see the benefits in STEM, is that what the Cadets want either?
Two engineers (JB and myself) have suggested we’d rather not “engineer” at Squadron - how many Cadets want to do more “school” at Squadron too?
the STEM activities needs to be interesting and fun more than educational else our “Venture Adventure” might as well be “do more learning in a classroom”
My work has engaged with the local school on STEM topics, and offered some real life “Challenges” for them to tackle.
none of these are completed in 2 hours (ie Sqn parade night), each mini project taking 2 months where the students define the problem, brainstorm solutions, shortlist options, build, refine and then present their chosen solution. The students really enjoy it and gives them a real sense of achievement and understanding. this is a very “educational” route…I am not sure it could work for a volunteering organisation, with limited resource that is focused on fun experiences rather than additional school learning.
in the “good ole days” of “projects” on Squadron there was never 100% attendance for the 6 week “term” these were run for, so unsure how we can adopt a similar STEM engagement “project”.
any STEM activity needs to be completed in a Squadron night or two else it becomes a chore…
7 Likes
Just to feed that scheme, we’d need about 20% of our current CFAV numbers added and converted to that as a specialism. The greater portion of that is converts the more stretched we become in other areas. Lose too much of what we currently do and the attraction to young people reduces and the benefits listed in reviews are diminished.
I don’t see such a targeted recruitment campaign being anywhere near successful enough given how niche it is.
How many of our current CFAV cohort give their time as SMEs in the same area as their career? How many actively avoid too much responsibility within cadets that corresponds to their job?
5 Likes
Yes, because the current FTRS roles have worked so well and definitely haven’t been retirement posts for people who don’t understand the organisation.
Sorry, but I think that’s a really poor idea. A lot of the issues we have is because of ex-service personnel coming in and trying to run the place like they’re still in and important. More paid staff yes, but not more FTRS staff. There are aome exceptions, like RC(N), but for every one of him there are 3 Jason Chalks, Middletons or Dawns.
7 Likes
That’s fair. Maybe that’s a lack of understanding of the FTRS on my part. Can we not recruit people from a primarily volunteer-management background and put them into FTRS? That was more my logic, thus the ‘If not FTRS then RFCA style’. I don’t think we need more ex-regulars. I think we need more paid staff who know how to work with young people and manage volunteers.
1 Like
My understanding is FTRS roles require active armed forces experience, so you need to have been serving in whatever applicable rank in order to be eligible. The commandant post, the regional commandants and some of the posts at HQAC require you to be currently serving as a regular, have recently retired or planned to, or have reserve equivalent service I believe.
1 Like
We’re never going to get away from that problem with projects but I still think they work, and could work quite well for STEM. You’re limited in what you can deliver in one or two nights so it can be difficult making it meaningful.
But what Sqn Ldr is going to go for and OC Wing role, leaving a highly paid job in civvie street, to become FTRS. How covers the ‘home command’ funding gap!
They may have excellent background in many areas, but that comes at a price that many wouldn’t be prepared to take a pay drop to take on.
3 Likes
I mean, we currently have 36 people doing it for free… Getting some people to do it for a wage should be workable!
2 Likes
I imagine there are a decent number of people in Regions that now use pillars who would appreciate having paid staff at Wing level again.
FTRS have to be ex-regular or reserve at either the appropriate rank or the rank below (with a positive promotion recommendation and promotable).
I think it’s a marginally better way of shaping the organisation than using civil servants, but the ACF model of having RFCA employ the full- and part-time uniformed staff roles is the model we should be looking to in my opinion. Lots of those posts are filled by ex-regulars, yes, but many are also taken by experienced CFAV (who can’t be FTRS and wouldn’t do it for Civil Service pay or want to be in uniform).
5 Likes
The other option of course is go the MSSC way in terms of paid staff. Have staff be employed by the RAF Charity, or a similar new charity that could be created.
2 Likes
Yes, the way MSSC can turn public money into non-public money, doing away with the all the restrictions on how certain funds can be spent, by treating the public money as a donation to their charity, is something to behold and imitate.
2 Likes
This is probably also suited for cadet forces jobs but the sea cadets seem to be offering a post for cadets who have become staff to start their careers with them for a year.
Can you imagine if each region HQ could offer a recently school leaver air cadet a work placement for 12months so they have a great start to CV experience & references.
It’s almost creating apprenticeships for volunteer managers.
5 Likes