This could be a discussion entirely on its own.
I know CIs that exist on paper, come down once in a blue moon and drink tea. Do I think it’s fair their time should count towards the CFM? Definitely not.
However, I know CIs that go way above the call of duty and have done more than uniformed staff in some cases.
As @AlexCorbin has said - we need a smoother transition to uniform process and I would say make it more attractive.
What is “above the call of duty”?
We volunteer and do what we can as a volunteer your “call of duty” is just that.
Differentiating on some arbitrary basis, which is all it would be, is nonsensical. Unless you can have some hard-wired empirical system of recording people’s actual input is, you can’t measure it.
God knows why this organisation (or some on here at least) has it in for CIs? Baffles me completely. Having worked with CIs of all kinds and been one for 5 years or so, I won’t hear a word against them. Wearing a uniform doesn’t automatically make you better, it makes you more controllable, but only if people are scared of some of the utter gibberish threatening things of no consequence spouted by people who think they are better than others because they wear a uniform and have a different badge. I’ve never been bothered by the nonsense they come out with, like you’ll be subject to disciplinary measures if you don’t do this or that, as what’s the worst that could happen?
I know plenty in uniform who scuttle off to hide in the dank, dark corners of Wing, Region and HQAC, as they can’t do the nitty gritty or are completely useless and mates with the Wing crowd, and, no talk of their lack of input. WSOs turn up and just sod nights up IMO, they don’t really serve any purpose.
I’m pretty sure that discussion’s been had on here, several times 
There’s so much variety in effort and commitment, that no blanket rule always makes sense. Plenty of people in uniform who do the bare minimum and lots of CIs who do loads (and vice versa).
I’d suggest more than above the “average” CFAV but also notable more than “the rest”
@steve679 What a load of vague tosh. I would love to see this metric measured in a consistent and meaningful way.
@grounded People doing more or less than others is the same in every place where ever groups of people get together, in paid and unpaid roles. I’m always wary of people who make a lot of noise about the things they do, opposed to those who just get on with it.
Whilst I think you’re splitting hairs, there is already a set criteria and that being time served in uniform.
The point is that many CIs have done what is considered a uniformed role for some years and this doesn’t count.
The CFM is tri service, the other cadet forces don’t have a large non uniform cohort, we are unique in that way.
You can happily have a CI turn up once a quarter and that’s fantastic.
If you are a uniform CFAV there is a the baseline expectation of 12 hours per month.
This is a medal worn in uniform, why would a CI want it, they get a long service certificate.
I think it’s only right that uniformed service only counts, I’m glad now that breaks in service don’t stop anything counting.
Indeed. Some WHQs enforced a spell as CI for all ex cadets going into uniform, which meant their cadet service was unable to be counted.
Personally, I think time as a CI served before they go into uniform should count. If you allowed to use cadet service, why not?
Why not allow up to 4 years CI service to count towards your eligibility, the same way we were allowed to use up to 4 years cadet service back in the day?
Agreed.
It honestly does baffle me a staff cadets’ two years is seen as more criteria filling than a non-uniformed staff member.
I was also one of those staff members that had to do time as a CI before going into uniform, which I found frustrating at the time; however, looking back it was probably the right thing to do whilst I was at university.
To be honest I would expect that’s not strictly the case.
I wouldn’t imagine that anyone has actively decided that cadet service is more valuable. Simply that CI service doesn’t even enter into the equation because the medal is for uniformed service; so the only question remaining was “should 18-20 year olds of the ATC be treated the same as 18-20 year old of the other forces [who can be uniformed staff at 18]?”
I don’t think anyone has physically said [quote=“wdimagineer2b, post:42, topic:8600”]
I wouldn’t imagine that anyone has actively decided that cadet service is more valuable.
[/quote]
Agreed and this is the most likely case, however it is the way it may be perceived.
Again, I agree this is probably the underlying question that needs addressing.
I think now that we have greater expectations of staff cadets and we use them in more supervisory roles than we used to it’s a simple answer. Yes they should.
Indeed if Staff used Staff Cadets as they are intended to be used they 100% should be included.
Same could be said for uniformed CFAV
Which is utter nonsense it’s only guidance and always has been (in my lifetime) and in all my time where I’d be aware of it, has only been used by one WSO, when I had a member of staff who was having a bit of a traumatic time and turned up once in a while for around a year. The WSO thought they should go NEP I said no and if he wanted, report me. Nothing happened. He knew I didn’t care and unless they kicked me out for it, it wouldn’t change anything. I was pretty sure knowing what was going on, the member of staff would have left if the NEP thing came up, but they are still on the sqn and doing good things. The WSO left the Corps 2 years ago after being offered NEP, when he was having similar problems. All over a few hours a month, which could have been handled much better.
As a CO I’ve got far too many things that are more important to be getting on with than worrying about who is or isn’t doing something as outdated as this is.
Agreed, but in reality we know some that don’t.
I admit that’s a local problem and not a problem to do with the topic in question.
intentionally vague although i do reject the term “tosh”.
to define “above the call of duty” first you need to define “call of duty”
as we’re volunteers there is no such a definition so your shooting in the dark to begin with.
What a CO does at one unit to be “above the call of duty” could be what half the CFAV do at another unit.
due to the inconsistencies of time put in by us all, which further varies 900+ times you can’t define it.
in short - you’re trying to define the undefinable…or alternatively refer to Valiant
The latest batch of ACF\SCC CFM awards were promulgated in the London Gazette today. No sign (again) of ATC\CCF(RAF) awards.
Disgraceful.
Aaaaaaand…still no CFM awards to the ATC\CCF(RAF) in today’s Gazette…
When was the last time they Gazetted any appointments or CFMs?