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

Adult Staff Execs
81

only until you see the endless [strike]■■■■ kissing[/strike] smoozing that uniform are required/expected/whatever to perform to people they very obviously wouldn’t wee on if they were on fire…

its not the work - well, ok, seeing the OC’s inbox every parade night isn’t exactly a recruitment tool - its the pseudo-military (and i use ‘pseudo’ very deliberately, the bowing and scraping some rather sad people within the hirachy seem to expect/require is far less prevailent within the regular and reserve forces than it is in this most pseudo of pseudo-military organisations…) crap that accompanies the work and makes it far more galling than it actually has to be. being a CI means not being expected to partake, except at the most basic and infrequent level, in such guff while doing the same job, and getting the same satisfaction from the acheivement, as the uniforms.

yes its slightly underwhelming that i was unpaid while the person next to me, doing exactly the same job, with exactly the same levels of responsibility and accountability, was being paid, and yes, spending several weeks of my life in Guardrooms explaining why i was going to the armoury without any kind of MOD identification did somewhat grate, but the freedom to say ‘no’ more than compensated…

personally, given the choice between the two streams, i assume that anyone who opts to go into uniform needs their head examined…

82

It’s what’s happening to CGI’S no longer will they be recruited, all new staff being put in as NCO aircrew :dry:

83

[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=26189]Someone keeps whinging about CI and IDs. I really wouldn’t blow that issue open wide if i were you. Especially when you realise that a significant amount of uniformed staff have only undergone a BPSS check (security check) which is essentially two forms of recognised ID, and two referees saying you are ok with kiddies, and yet you get an ID card which allows you into some interesting places. Then couple that with the fact that contractors have to have a valid CTC to work on a pothole on a base and suddenly you see a gap. A big one.

But hey, keep asking these questions when most areas of government are facing a 40% reduction in budget! I’m sure you will be prioritised.[/quote]
If it gets asked at the CI gathering, then there might need to be a better rationale than this. Unless of course they would want to publicly and on record, come up with something this lame and annoy a large proportion of CIs who find this particularly irksome.
It’s not a big gap, CIs do the BPSS and a large number have done CTC (as from now SC) as a matter of course.

84

The CI Gathering has happened, took place over the weekend. Was on CAC’s Twitter, not sure if we will see any feedback through internal channels…

85

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=26192][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=26189]Someone keeps whinging about CI and IDs. I really wouldn’t blow that issue open wide if i were you. Especially when you realise that a significant amount of uniformed staff have only undergone a BPSS check (security check) which is essentially two forms of recognised ID, and two referees saying you are ok with kiddies, and yet you get an ID card which allows you into some interesting places. Then couple that with the fact that contractors have to have a valid CTC to work on a pothole on a base and suddenly you see a gap. A big one.

But hey, keep asking these questions when most areas of government are facing a 40% reduction in budget! I’m sure you will be prioritised.[/quote]
If it gets asked at the CI gathering, then there might need to be a better rationale than this. Unless of course they would want to publicly and on record, come up with something this lame and annoy a large proportion of CIs who find this particularly irksome.
It’s not a big gap, CIs do the BPSS and a large number have done CTC (as from now SC) as a matter of course.[/quote]

You’re wrong. It’s a HUGE gap. The numbers I’ve seen equate to 75% of CIs alone. Across all staff it’s put as 62%. Why do you thing the shooting fraternity managed to get a stay of execution? Simply because of the numbers needed alone for CTC to SC and the cost on the processing department DVA who have been hard hit. These are real facts that all government departments are up against, and not an “HQAC mess up” as your often quick to point out.

86

Perhaps logically (and considering the numbers involved, practically), not having a MOD90 is just one of those facts about being a Civilian Instructor that is best accepted unless it would be possible for CIs who want one to self-fund a SC clearance.

On the flipside, and notwithstanding the costs associated with our need to catch up in the area of vetting, I think all uniformed CFAV in the ATC should be cleared to SC, whether or not they were previously required to hold CTC. The SCC requires this as a prerequisite for holding a MOD90 and it seems to be a sensible stance to take even if it a costly one.

Perhaps we could negotiate some way of reallocating all of those savings we’ve been making on AVGAS and tug fuel…

2 Likes
87

IF and its a big IF a CI needs an ID for regular access to a base (twice a week or more), the base in question can arrange (via BPSS) to issues a “local” contractors pass - I know of 3 CI’s that have them (one issued last month)

88

Apart from some idiot declaring weapons as “Secret” assets, there’s zero need for SC. a CTC is wholly suitable. The stuff out office deal with on a daily basis pales into insignificance the stuff we in the ACO have unrestricted access to. Some people like to pretend their CI/Sgt/Plt Off 008 and 3/4 and Walt around saying, well I’ve got an SC and my finances were checked. Really? I mean, really?

89

Regardless, some idiot has done it and here we are. We alone as a CF have got away with just CTC for many years.

90

It might help redress the ridiculous system where a CI can run a range (so CTC valid) but can’t collect/transport the items associated with doing so. I’m sure that has caused a few range cancellations in the past.

Having had to do “real” SC in the past for playing with buckets of sunshine, augmenting the Cadet Forces system is a total waste of resources.

91

Sorry the cost and staffing level is an irrelevant argument.
Define hit hard? We produce the same annual tonnage with a workforce around 20% of what it was when I started here 33 years ago. Pay hasn’t increased massively, in terms of relative value, I earn more than my counterpart then, but it’s not relative. It just seems the public sector has taken longer to catch up with the reality of something many outside the public sector have been living with for years. If we went on strike all it means is extra production (no overtime) to fulfil orders or lose out in what is an extremely competitive market. If it hits the bottom line too hard, start looking elsewhere.
The DVA forms are all online now and I imagine most of the checking is done online, so you don’t need lots of people shuffling paper, as a result the cost should reduce. It seems an inability to move with the times probably means the costs are higher than they need to be. But I imagine that empires need protecting.
This must be why whenever you deal with public sector, the people are helpful enough but the processes and set up are overly complicated and convoluted.

92

Sorry the cost and staffing level is an irrelevant argument.
Define hit hard? We produce the same annual tonnage with a workforce around 20% of what it was when I started here 33 years ago. Pay hasn’t increased massively, in terms of relative value, I earn more than my counterpart then, but it’s not relative. It just seems the public sector has taken longer to catch up with the reality of something many outside the public sector have been living with for years. If we went on strike all it means is extra production (no overtime) to fulfil orders or lose out in what is an extremely competitive market. If it hits the bottom line too hard, start looking elsewhere.
The DVA forms are all online now and I imagine most of the checking is done online, so you don’t need lots of people shuffling paper, as a result the cost should reduce. It seems an inability to move with the times probably means the costs are higher than they need to be. But I imagine that empires need protecting.
This must be why whenever you deal with public sector, the people are helpful enough but the processes and set up are overly complicated and convoluted.[/quote]
Cost and staffin ARE relevant.
A workforce of 40% less means significant impact. Increase in work required against a reduction in headcount means, that at some point something suffers. Even yourself has to see this argument?
I mean great for you - you produce the same amount of something with 20% less staff than 33 years ago. Automation, digitlisation and other efficiencies mean we don’t have thousands of people on process lines these days also, but i’m struggling to see the validity in your argument. Had you sad 20% less staff than LAST year and we still do the same - THEN i’d be impressed. But i’m not, because you are comparing apples with oxygen.

93

I think GHE said his organisation is producing more with only 20% of the staff of 33 years ago!!
I don’t see that vetting should take over long or be too difficult to do. I used to do it as part of my then job with the police about 30 years ago.
It amazes me that the ACO take six weeks or more to get even a basic disclosure done for new staff and redone for existing ones.
The college where I worked used to get it all dealt with in about ten days. The latest one I had done took five days and was largely online, apart from visiting the HR person with actual documents like passport, banks statements etc. Not ‘rocket science’ as they say.

Now…this might stir things up and I have my tin hat ready. How about ceasing to pay CFAV uniformed staff completely and use the money saved to reinvest in kit / facilities for the cadets. Also use the money to pay a realistic mileage rate for all that doesn’t start nine miles away (e.g. 40p per mile). For camp type attendance an allowance could be paid of , say, £30 per week to cover out of pocket expenses and maybe a few beers in a mess or whatever. HQAC finance department would then just have to deal with expenses rather than pay. The system might then work a bit faster.
I know that some will say that we are ‘part of a military organisation’ and should do the same as everyone else, however is it not time to think outside the box and move on a bit. the moto, maybe, should be ‘work smarter’ and think outside the 1950’s admin box.
Ok Ok I know it is all run by the government and there will be empires and vested interests to contend with.

Anyway, ramble over and I have installed the sandbags etc ready for incoming!!

1 Like
94

The old chestnut about if you’re doing it as a CI so why not in uniform is and always has been a nonsense. But even more so now. Angus is right IMO anyone wanting to go into uniform nowadays must be off their rocker. The good days of the Corps have long gone and the expectations and pressure on uniformed staff will only get worse.

The notion of going into uniform for personal development is also a nonsense and spouted by people trying to glitz up being in uniform. What is the developmental aspect? Also if there is to be much said about on about personal development you need to make training much more widely available, in greater volume and relevant. I don’t know what new staff coming in expect, but I can imagine the delivery is a long way short of the expectation. But as ever HQAC look to do things on the cheap and get well meaning amateurs in the form of CFAV to do the bulk of it.
The only thing we can do which can have some limited developmental aspect is a time limited move to another sqn, BUT this requires the person taking the option of a move on and committing to it and the receiving squadron to have the people and time to do it properly. I did it years ago and it was good, but I went there with a role. I had a CI do it about 10 years ago not long after they were certificated and it was a disaster and similarly a newbie Sgt had the same experience as neither squadron had the staff spare to take them under their wing and as a result they were back on home turf, 2 months later. I was approached to take someone was prepared to do the work with them myself, but they turned up twice in the first month and I binned it, as I couldn’t sit around just in case they graced me with their presence.
It’s not like being at work where undertaking ‘personal development’ where you can access courses etc through a myrad of training providers, arrange secondments etc which can in time and other factors lead to advancement, which invariably includes a bigger montly deposit in your bank account and potentially other perks. You can get promoted in the ATC, but it’s really developmental? Getting promoted in the ACO brings all the grief that promotion at work can bring, but without a single benefit.

When I have staff approach me about going into uniform or commissioning from SNCO, the main reasons given is because they have been numbed into regarding it as having some kudos (that soon dissipates) or to be recognised in their own right. The CoC like it so they can get, as angus mentions, people to bow and scrape in their presence, I’ve had and known too many WSOs like that. I’ve seen too many go into uniform after much badgering or of their own volition only to find it’s not a land of milk and honey. The perceived benefits vanish even faster if they commission as the pressure to move and maybe take a squadron ramps up.

It’s interesting speaking to people who have reverted to CI after being in uniform, it is like speaking to people who have retired from work. The pressure has been removed and they now feel they can enjoy life in the Corps. They do no less, but it’s on their terms afterall they like all of us are volunteering our time and invaribly money to do this.

The notion of ditching CI for no more than ‘backroom admin duties’ and all other staff uniformed as ‘front of house’ is laughable. What happens when as happens all too often, real life gets in the way and staff aren’t able to get there? Do you shut up shop for the night or cancel the activity or expect your ‘backroom duty’ staff to take over from the front of house and vice versa?
If you we had this approach would the uniformed side of the Corps only appeal to walts and ex-cadets? Would we lose the wealth of knowledge and life experience that parents can bring to the Corps, if only for the duration of their child’s time in the Corps?

Whatever way round things happen, there needs IMO to be a revamp of the whole volunteer staff side of the Corps to give it a wider appeal as volunteering is a not a priority for people rushed off their feet with work and family etc. It’s bad enough getting people to help out at village events, where you would like to think community spirit would come into its own. We are all busy people doing Air Cadets in our spare time, which is constantly failed to be recognised by the higher organisation as they are doing it as a day job. I’ve had phone calls at work from Wing and Region and they don’t like it when I say I can’t talk as I’m at work and even less when they email me and I don’t look at it for maybe 2 or 3 days. We don’t need work-like job descriptions and TORS (maybe there are some who feel rudderless without one) but more in the way of proper understanding we do this in our own time and tangible benefits, to make people feel like it will be manageable on their terms, worthwhile and not become a second job.

1 Like
95

[quote=“sypland” post=26203]
Now…this might stir things up and I have my tin hat ready. How about ceasing to pay CFAV uniformed staff completely and use the money saved to reinvest in kit / facilities for the cadets. Also use the money to pay a realistic mileage rate for all that doesn’t start nine miles away (e.g. 40p per mile). For camp type attendance an allowance could be paid of , say, £30 per week to cover out of pocket expenses and maybe a few beers in a mess or whatever. HQAC finance department would then just have to deal with expenses rather than pay. The system might then work a bit faster.
I know that some will say that we are ‘part of a military organisation’ and should do the same as everyone else, however is it not time to think outside the box and move on a bit. the moto, maybe, should be ‘work smarter’ and think outside the 1950’s admin box.
Ok Ok I know it is all run by the government and there will be empires and vested interests to contend with.

Anyway, ramble over and I have installed the sandbags etc ready for incoming!![/quote]

Interesting notion… To answer the easy one, mileage if you want the full 40p a mile copy you HTD and your HTD payslip complete tax form p87 and it comes via the taxman.
Where I would like to see is people who use they 28 not as a second income but to offset time off work.
I took a week off work to go to camp I lost earnings of about £1500 for the week, I am not entitled to holiday pay on cadet duty I get 2wks unpaid, did the flt lt rate of a week at camp repay this no but it helped to offset the loss. I am off at weekends anyway so I don’t really bother claiming pay (my choice) as its my “hobby”. Then you look about and you get staff who work out April to when ever arrange weekend activities and as soon as the 28days are up then they stop doing things then say “can’t go to camp I am out of days” . I would like to see is at least 8days of the 28 being fixed against attendance at a week long camp/ course but we need to encourage or tell people attendance at annual camps is a requirement

96

[quote=“sypland” post=26203]I think GHE said his organisation is producing more with only 20% of the staff of 33 years ago!!
I don’t see that vetting should take over long or be too difficult to do. I used to do it as part of my then job with the police about 30 years ago.
It amazes me that the ACO take six weeks or more to get even a basic disclosure done for new staff and redone for existing ones.
The college where I worked used to get it all dealt with in about ten days. The latest one I had done took five days and was largely online, apart from visiting the HR person with actual documents like passport, banks statements etc. Not ‘rocket science’ as they say.

Now…this might stir things up and I have my tin hat ready. How about ceasing to pay CFAV uniformed staff completely and use the money saved to reinvest in kit / facilities for the cadets. Also use the money to pay a realistic mileage rate for all that doesn’t start nine miles away (e.g. 40p per mile). For camp type attendance an allowance could be paid of , say, £30 per week to cover out of pocket expenses and maybe a few beers in a mess or whatever. HQAC finance department would then just have to deal with expenses rather than pay. The system might then work a bit faster.
I know that some will say that we are ‘part of a military organisation’ and should do the same as everyone else, however is it not time to think outside the box and move on a bit. the moto, maybe, should be ‘work smarter’ and think outside the 1950’s admin box.
Ok Ok I know it is all run by the government and there will be empires and vested interests to contend with.

Anyway, ramble over and I have installed the sandbags etc ready for incoming!![/quote]

The ACO don’t do any vetting. DVA do the vetting, and things have changed significantly since you were last doing them 30 years ago! With compromising PerSec, i know that it takes a LOT longer these days for various, well founded, reasons.

97

DVA - we are really treating the symptom here, not the cause.

CTC definition - open source:

A bit of an overkill for an RCO…

And in the future, we will have to move up a stage. Double overkill, waste of resources.

I’m not sure if I can quote the level of SC that I had - but it only took 3 months or so, very much prior to online options.

98

I know DVA do the vetting. It still only takes a maximum of ten working days to get the result. The hitch seems to be the way the ACO goes about it.

99

No it doesn’t? CTC’s are taking around four weeks on average, and SC’s are taking up to two months (in some cases three). This is commensurate across all the different vetting departments (outside of the MoD). The ACO has limited input in the way it’s done other than someone registering the persons details on the online system which takes about 3/4 minutes, then once the application has been submtted by the person, checking that they are the person in question, which takes about 60 seconds, then waiting for the response to come back with a result. HQAC aren’t even involved in the process, it’s Wing HQ admin staff who set people up. In fact, it’s the fastest way to “go about it” at the moment.

100

[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=26210]DVA - we are really treating the symptom here, not the cause.

CTC definition - open source:

A bit of an overkill for an RCO…

And in the future, we will have to move up a stage. Double overkill, waste of resources.

I’m not sure if I can quote the level of SC that I had - but it only took 3 months or so, very much prior to online options.[/quote]

Exactly, and SC is:

[quote]A Security Check (SC) is the most widely held level of security clearance. It is required for posts involving regular and uncontrolled access to ‘SECRET’ (and below) assets and/or occasional, supervised access to TOP SECRET assets. And for individuals who:

While not in such posts, will be in a position to directly or indirectly bring about the same degree of damage.
Will have sufficient knowledge to obtain a comprehensive picture of a SECRET plan, policy or project.
Are being considered for employment where it would not be possible to make reasonable career progress without security clearance for access to SECRET assets.
Require access to certain levels of classified material originating from another country or international organisation[/quote]

There is only one level of SC, SC itself. You may have been asked to complete a financial questionnaire for various reasons such as limited history for checks to be completed, time overseas, vulnerability depending on your post. Not everyone has one for SC.

Want to know about National Security Vetting? https://www.gov.uk/security-vetting-and-clearance