CFAVs roles, responsibilities, & training: is it time to address "role creep" in the ATC?

Adult Staff Execs
108

Perhaps some people don’t have the option - or have other priorities? Maybe I’m making 2+2 = 5, but for Plt Off Prune, you post with an insight about some matters that to me indicate an ACO status outside of a sqn. You probably don’t move in the exalted circles of the biggest ivory tower (unless you are very clever at disguising your knowledge), so I would place you at Wg Ex O status.

Regardless, you cannot make the blanket statement that people should get their personal admin into shape. For some work places, booking ahead more than 6 months is impossible, & you have to fit it with minimum personnel requirements for different specialisations, etc. Add into the mix, working partners/spouses, shift work, family with children of school age, family holiday requirement (availability/pricing) & other factors, & booking a random week a year or so ahead is impossible. This excludes other ACO activities that generally peak in early summer - shooting, DofE, Nijmegen, overseas camps (Aerospace Camp), whatever.

Yep, if you are at a wg, no kids, retired or part-time working (or even own your own company), things might be much easier.

If you are interested, I can only book the equivalent of 2 x 9 day breaks (with possible options to extend much nearer the time) from May - Oct each year. If I subsequently have to change my leave, I get a points “penalty” = which can later my success at getting subsequent leave in peak time. One of my 9 day breaks goes on the Bisley Imperial Meeting, the other for a family holiday. I’ve already booked for the Imperial Meeting next year, & when the bidding process is open for Aug 2016 dates from next month, I shall do that too - taking into account my wife’s work schedule - at least for next year, at long last, I won’t have to take school holiday dates into account. So, like many other CFAVs, my personal admin is in order, but unable to do anything about dates for a camp.

1 Like
109

Yep that sounds familirar.
But it could be managed at Wing, ie they do a trawl to see who wants Easter or Summer, they notify 4/5 sqns which week they are going to camp in late October / early November and then those sqns go to whichever station is being touted for that week. Staff may find it easier booking time then as opposed to Jan or later.

Sorry Prune old chap but we have an unwritten rule in our dept that people with school age kids get priority for the school holiday period, unless there is a really good reason why, like one bloke who gave away his neice at her wedding a few years ago, which no one minded.

110

Perhaps some people don’t have the option - or have other priorities? Maybe I’m making 2+2 = 5, but for Plt Off Prune, you post with an insight about some matters that to me indicate an ACO status outside of a sqn. You probably don’t move in the exalted circles of the biggest ivory tower (unless you are very clever at disguising your knowledge), so I would place you at Wg Ex O status.

Regardless, you cannot make the blanket statement that people should get their personal admin into shape. For some work places, booking ahead more than 6 months is impossible, & you have to fit it with minimum personnel requirements for different specialisations, etc. Add into the mix, working partners/spouses, shift work, family with children of school age, family holiday requirement (availability/pricing) & other factors, & booking a random week a year or so ahead is impossible. This excludes other ACO activities that generally peak in early summer - shooting, DofE, Nijmegen, overseas camps (Aerospace Camp), whatever.

Yep, if you are at a wg, no kids, retired or part-time working (or even own your own company), things might be much easier.

If you are interested, I can only book the equivalent of 2 x 9 day breaks (with possible options to extend much nearer the time) from May - Oct each year. If I subsequently have to change my leave, I get a points “penalty” = which can later my success at getting subsequent leave in peak time. One of my 9 day breaks goes on the Bisley Imperial Meeting, the other for a family holiday. I’ve already booked for the Imperial Meeting next year, & when the bidding process is open for Aug 2016 dates from next month, I shall do that too - taking into account my wife’s work schedule - at least for next year, at long last, I won’t have to take school holiday dates into account. So, like many other CFAVs, my personal admin is in order, but unable to do anything about dates for a camp.[/quote]

Hahahaha. Our WExO wishes. Maybe some of his admin would improve for starters. No, seriously, i am VR(T), have been for a while now. Been on the merry-go-round including command thank you. Not that you will believe me of course, but i don’t care. I get your point about employment restrictions, but don’t try and kid me that everyone works on a zero hours contract in McDonalds or has three kids aged 1-15.

Over a summer camp period, looking at the corps taskings for camp, each wing needs roughly 40 staff. Of which i would say 25% need to be uniform staff. Now if wings containing approx, what 250 staff on average (if the national figure is right) cannot find 40 staff out of that lot - and remember some weird folk like to do two weeks, there are issues aren’t there.

It’s my belief, that as more and more “gucchi” thinks come up, staff start to wander off and prioritise those things instead. Rightly or wrongly depending on some peoples view. QL. JL. QAIC. RIAT. Aerospace. Music, Drill & Ceremonial all suck pro active staff from wings, which reduces the pot of those who can. Maybe we look at a two tier system? Have your gucchi stuff for older cadets, and your basic annual camps for younger 13-16 cadets, smaller camps, less in frequency, but still active and enjoyable?

Anyway, i’m off to process some 1771’s… .whooops :S :whistle: :wink:

111

I only tend to do annual camp every 3 years because to be quite honest they bore me, I kinky do them to keep wing off my back. My time and effort is much more productively spent running a local camp, I can as I did last year take over 100 cadets away and get more than 5 spaces for my cadets! (Which is what I average on annual camp).

With a smaller and smaller RAF we need to put more time and effort into taking care of ourselves as the annual camp spaces will continue to sink, my own camps give a far broader and more interesting experience than most annual camps I’ve been on (as a cadet and a s staff).

112

[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=26235]

It’s my belief, that as more and more “gucchi” thinks come up, staff start to wander off and prioritise those things instead. Rightly or wrongly depending on some peoples view. QL. JL. QAIC. RIAT. Aerospace. Music, Drill & Ceremonial all suck pro active staff from wings, which reduces the pot of those who can. Maybe we look at a two tier system? Have your gucchi stuff for older cadets, and your basic annual camps for younger 13-16 cadets, smaller camps, less in frequency, but still active and enjoyable?[/quote]

i will argue that the “gucchi” stiff you mention is all “reserved” for the older Cadets other than RIAT and the D&C camp…

I am sure RIAT requires Cadets to have attended an annual camp prior to attending Fairford, it is certainly our rule on unit, at least that way we have names going forward for camps so they are eligible for RIAT the following year!

113

Daws @1159 wrote:

An interesting suggestion, and a version of which I support - although I don’t suggest scrapping CI’s altogether.

My DS solution:

  1. Introduce Civilian Assistant (CA). These individuals would not be CIs, and would not be permitted to instruct cadets. Their role/responsibilities would be akin to a “helper”, e.g. general supervision, assisting with admin, running the canteen, driving the minibus, etc. They would be required to complete BASIC and a first aid qual.

  2. Revise mandatory training for CIs. In addition to BASIC and first aid (as already required), CIs would be required to complete MOI before being permitted to instruct cadets (unless they already held a teaching/training qual).

  3. Introduce a uniformed training rank (akin to the ACF PI), e.g. AC(ATC). These individuals would wear uniform, would undergo the CI training package, and serve a minimum of 6 months before being streamed SNCO or Officer. In that 6 months they could undergo their training, and could be given SNCO-like or Officer-like responsibilities to “test drive” them, prior to their OC making a recommendation for streaming. Those found unsuitable for uniformed service would be reverted back to CIs. Exemptions for former regular/reserve WOs, SNCOs, & Officers.

Incidentally, I would also end cadet service at 18, and drop the age limit for CFAVs to 18 …accepting that not all former cadets would be suitable for CFAV service at age 18.

Cheers
BTI

114

Hmmm, 3 levels of staff, with trg/supervision & associated admin. Not likely - the system can’t really cope in places with what we have to do already! :stuck_out_tongue:

115

I tend to agree, except I would say the whole country not just places.

[quote]My DS solution:

  1. Introduce Civilian Assistant (CA). These individuals would not be CIs, and would not be permitted to instruct cadets. Their role/responsibilities would be akin to a “helper”, e.g. general supervision, assisting with admin, running the canteen, driving the minibus, etc. They would be required to complete BASIC and a first aid qual.
  2. Revise mandatory training for CIs. In addition to BASIC and first aid (as already required), CIs would be required to complete MOI before being permitted to instruct cadets (unless they already held a teaching/training qual).
  3. Introduce a uniformed training rank (akin to the ACF PI), e.g. AC(ATC). These individuals would wear uniform, would undergo the CI training package, and serve a minimum of 6 months before being streamed SNCO or Officer. In that 6 months they could undergo their training, and could be given SNCO-like or Officer-like responsibilities to “test drive” them, prior to their OC making a recommendation for streaming. Those found unsuitable for uniformed service would be reverted back to CIs. Exemptions for former regular/reserve WOs, SNCOs, & Officers.

Incidentally, I would also end cadet service at 18, and drop the age limit for CFAVs to 18 …accepting that not all former cadets would be suitable for CFAV service at age 18.[/quote]

The question is what do you do if not enough of your ‘instructor staff’ are not around? Do you ask, in this model, CA(s) to take a class?
If your CA(s) don’t turn up do you ask ‘instructor staff’ to cover admin etc at the possible expense of a class?

CAC mentioned something like this, but as ever nice idea but practically little or no use to me as a sqn cdr for the above reasons. But then HQAC know precious little about the sharp end of the organisation.
This model suggests demarcation that used to exist in many workplaces in the 60s. Jeremy Corbyn and his union chums would love it; one man to use a broom, one man to use a dustpan and another to empty the dustpan.

I really don’t get the “excitement” about MOI given that the Corps’ policy is that we use the things on Ultilearn to work through, the flaw there is everything is powerpoint based and some of the alleged SMEs either did their things in 20 minutes, got bored after 10 minutes or over excited using lots of graphics and animation. There isn’t one I would use without adding to or calming it down and removing all of the silly graphics. Two of the best instructors I know are old hands who ‘chalk & talk’, but then they started in the Corps when we did things properly. My staff find it amazing that I still have notes, acetates and other things from the last 30 years and much of it is still relevant and I still have some of the old books in the study, much to my wife’s annoyance. I have, and I doubt I’m not alone in having, staff who have only been around for a few years who don’t have the knowledge, understanding because we have lost the old books and or ability to deliver without some wizardry. It’s amusing when we have our COs gathering that if the technology fails or someone forgets their memory stick or has it all on their own PC that doesn’t work for some reason, the day falls apart quicker than flat pack furniture, as everyone is geared to using the tech. In the old days people stood up, gave us a handout, talked through it and that was it.

Instruction would be better if staff were expected to develop and deliver their own materials. The MOI (but losing the ice-breaker BS), should just be a guide document similar to the old instructional technique from Staff P2 and given out at ACTC when you did the AWO course. Then staff develop and deliver their own materials. Which actually works better than the HQAC/their gathered ‘professionals’ thinking they know best and staff don’t really have any requirement to think.

As for the training in general our Wing struggles to deliver what it should now. So to have a whole new tranche of expectation wouldn’t work.

Don’t really see a need for a uniformed training rank, it’s bad enough now with ‘baby SNCOs’ and Officer Cadets thinking they know it all. Don’t kid yourself we’d lose people who didn’t make the grade, unless want to lose staff as after being promised the ‘high life’ in a uniform is what could well happen. Which would potentially leave a squadron bereft of a member of staff, unless of course you’re personally on a sqn with lots and lots of staff who all turn up, so losing one isn’t a problem. It’s bad enough if someone gets binned in the current system, you have to spend time talking them into staying in the Corps, given the squadron’s front door and my inbox are not awash with people clamouring to join as staff. Rather than having a training uniform rank carry on what we have been doing which is essentially let people decide rather than someone suggesting or pushing in a direction which may not suit the individual. A lot of staff who have been prodded/pushed in a direction are never the happiest of souls.
If this was to happen you would need to set up the the system (which means programme and people to deliver) and run it on each Wing for at least 3 years before going live. The usual route of HQAC having an idea, making it policy without proper trialling has never proved to be a success.

The only bit I agree with is losing cadets at 18 and I wouldn’t even go down the route of having them as staff (keep that at 20, as two years not being cadets would be more beneficial to the Corps), I would push them towards the CWC / Sqn Association, so that they get to see and gain an understanding of how sqn finance works, from raising to spending. As a sqn cdr it was a steep learning curve when it came to getting to grips with the financial side as well as all the politicking that goes on in CWCs.

116

Further thoughts…

ALL staff who do any teaching whatsoever should undertake an MOI course, unless they have professional teaching qualifications. . After all it is meant to be a training organisation.

Having civilian assistants as suggested implies that they be like a school caretaker. I wonder how many people would be prepared to do the job? All too often CI’s get used as minibus drivers when they have other skills that could be made better use of. civilian assistant would be just yet another layer of staff. On my sqdn everyone mucks in and does anything and everything, including cleaning, driving etc etc.

Cadets should leave at 20, as at present, but they should ‘go away’ for at least six months before being allowed to apply to be adult staff. they should step back from the organisation.
It is noticeable how many staff are ex cadets and how ‘inbred’ they can be in attitude.

Overuse of technology is dangerous ref teaching. A good mix of theory and practical works best. Cadets learning styles should be considered as well. I.E. no death by powerpoint . Get on and thump an engine component on a table (for example) and allow the
cadets to handle it. Remember that the cadets could have spent most of the day stuck in a classroom and could do with something different.
Ref teaching…know your subject and don’t just spout out the utilearn packages. Mix and match with your own stuff to make it all interesting.

The increased use of IT has most certainly increased the admin burden and has created empires. Maybe its use should be simplified (somehow) to get people out of the office and away from computer screens. I.E. get people working and interacting with the cadets more.

117

[quote=“sypland” post=26249]Cadets should leave at 20, as at present, but they should ‘go away’ for at least six months before being allowed to apply to be adult staff. they should step back from the organisation.
It is noticeable how many staff are ex cadets and how ‘inbred’ they can be in attitude.[/quote]Completely disagree - we have a staff shortage as it is, without driving good people away.

118

[quote=“MattB” post=26252][quote=“sypland” post=26249]Cadets should leave at 20, as at present, but they should ‘go away’ for at least six months before being allowed to apply to be adult staff. they should step back from the organisation.
It is noticeable how many staff are ex cadets and how ‘inbred’ they can be in attitude.[/quote]Completely disagree - we have a staff shortage as it is, without driving good people away.[/quote]
In the old days of the 22 year old I tend to feel it was better as people had ‘grown up’ a bit before becoming staff. When I timed out at 22 I had been working for nearly 3 years, was nearly engaged, as a CWO I’d been far more involved staff wise and naturally detached from the cadets, as they were much younger than me (when I finished as a CWO the next oldest cadet was just 18) and not in my social group, not that I socialised with the sqn staff beyond sqn functions. Now at 20 the vast majority are still cadets in every sense of the word, are too matey with younger staff and many still haven’t even left education.
It is a worry that we rely so much on ex-cadets to become staff as they have probably become institutionalised and numbed to the moronic, nonsensical, stifling policies we have. You can understand why older people with no previous affiliation might not feel like joining or staying (if they do join) as they find what are in effect is older people trying to behave like teenagers and in some cases lots and lots and lots of silly speak as staff like pretending to be military. I listen to some older cadets speaking (and know instantly which sqns they are from) and truly wish they don’t become staff as you can see a continuation of the mindset.
If HQAC are going to attract different people (we need to dilute and extend the gene pool) they need different polcies relating to staff recruitment and ending cadets at 18 with a minimum 20 to be volunteer staff would be a step in the right direction as it would lose some of the ‘childish’ staff I have increasingly seen. I’ve started telling my cadets who’ve aged out at 20 (they leave at 18 IMO) to go away, think about it and come back in 18 months if it’s what they want.

119

In the old days the 22 year old would then go in as either an AWO or a full Plt Off. This was too early for WO, even a fake one, but it kind of works a bit better for Plt Off in parity with the RAF.

With our current rank progression (ASNO and Officer Cadet) there is not so much of a problem with jumping straight in and the reduction of age to 20 works just as well now.

If cadets topped at 18 (which I oppose - the system is good as it is) then I’d propose the following system for transition to staff:

[ul]
[li]Civilian Instructor.
[ul]
[li]Minimum age 18.[/li]
[/ul][/li]

[li]Sergeant (ATC)
[ul]
[li]Minimum age 18.[/li]
[li]Direct transition for Cdt who have been FS before. (I see CWO going if we change the age)[/li]
[li]Mandatory 1 year as CI for direct entrant or Cdt entrant of Sgt or below[/li]
[/ul][/li]

[li]Commission
[ul]
[li]Minimum age 22 [/li]
[li]No direct entry. [/li]
[li]Must serve as CI or SNCO for at least 1 year before commissioning.[/li]
[/ul]
[/ul]

120

It’s strange to say it, but I find myself agreeing with GHE2. As an organisation, we seem to have become blinkered to the narrow-minded, institutionalised ‘waltyness’ that many ex-cadets can bring to the adult cadre. There is an attitude of ‘get them into uniform when they time out as cadets at all costs’ and in the long term, I don’t think it does us any favours.

I have nothing at all against former cadets, the majority of our uniformed staff fit into that category and they are highly motivated to remain part of the Corps. Indeed, some of the best Sqn officers and Sqn Cdrs I have seen are early twentysomething ex-cadets; equally, some of the worst fit into that age and experience bracket. I also hate to say it, but many SNCOs who make that instantaneous jump from cadets to uniformed adult staff are for the first few years, little more than ‘older cadets’ in their attitude and behaviour (applies to some officers too). A lot of them know nothing other than being a cadet in the ATC and what they know about the ATC and RAF has been taught to them by people with the same background. I have personally witnessed Jnr Offs and SNCOs telling cadets utter tripe regarding the parent Service and military matters in general; because that’s what they were taught and so it goes on. That circle needs to be broken, but sending our ex-cadets into the big bad world for a couple of years before taking them back is only part of the solution. Unless we actually tell them the correct order of things all we will do is delay the transmission of tripe and ‘waltyness’ for a couple of years. Sure we should have a slightly more worldly-wise person, but the ‘I know how the RAF does stuff’ remains unless replaced by reality.

Regrettably, at the moment, there is a drive for quantity rather than quality, but we must have both. Ultimately, that means better training and a separate discussion …

121

I know several that have been fast-tracked (sometimes within 12 months of commissioning) to Flt Lt in order to take a command…

122

That’s been the case for years and remember cases in the 80s and 90s.
How many of these are around now? IIRC only one who resigned their commission after 3 years to get out of the job, ‘re-mustered’ as a CI and by his own admission started to enjoy the Corps again and recommissioned some years later, but has been a sqn officer second time around. There are others who have been around that long, but they took commands after 5/6 years as Officers, not within 2.

I personally feel, and I know others will disagree, there should be an ‘apprenticeship’ as CI for all staff of at least one ‘tour’, the only exception would be ex-regulars, but I would still suggest at least 2 years as a CI to get into the ‘ACO way’. This would allow people to find their feet and get some qualifications before even starting down the road to a uniform. If the fear is the longer the period before going into uniform, the chances are they won’t do it, then something needs to change about the perception of a uniformed role. This isn’t about TORs and other such nonsense, this is about quality of life for want of a phrase as a uniformed member of staff.

In the current comic Gp Capt Reminger says when he joined the Corps in 2001 it was a much simpler existence (although by his own admission not for long) than it has become in the ACO of 2015 and onwards. I’m not one usually to agree with the SLT, but to come from someone like him who is doing it as their day job, the changes when applied to the modern day ATC squadron commander are exponential, given that the demanding volunteer ATC role is juggled with family life, outside the Corps interests and ever more demanding day jobs. Maybe the ACMB need to reflect urgently on his thoughts and think about the pressure on sqn cdrs. We can’t be the only Wing where people have had in recent years to be coerced into sqn cdr roles or have it explained as it’s you or no one.
When you look at our Wing 80% of the Sqn Cdrs are over 45, 60% over 50 and around 40% been doing it on one or more sqns for 20 years or more. There have been a few young guns over the years but they have done 4/5 years (after telegraphing unhappiness for a couple of years) and just binned it as they couldn’t see any sort of succession and forced Wing’s hand to replace them. Ironically some of these have ended up on Wing staff in backwater roles as a way of keeping them in, as they have been mates with Wing Staff.

123

interesting your wing has “mates rates” :slight_smile: it may well be the same wing as me… if your not in favour or in the club then your normally out the door mostly by saying enough is enough which of course will only ever hit the management chain as “for personal reasons”…

124

Speaking with a few different people over the years it’s endemic across the Corps, you can say who’s going to Wing when they need someone without pausing for breath.

125

when i was a cadet and then CI, my Wing had 3 wing commanders from the same Sqn, one after the other.

this one sqn also provided the WWO…

oh yes, it was very easy to tell who was, and who was not part of the in-crowd.

126

Are you talking about my name?

Stenhouse

127

There is a lot of fantastic points raised that I agree with and I feel I can’t add to the ones I agree with, but what I shall say is that the ATC having a CI option is the very reason I returned. If the ACF offered a CI post similar to the ATC, I wouldn’t give you lot a second glance.