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too many things that are more important to be getting on with than worrying about who is or isn’t doing something as outdated as this is.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?
Around 10 months to a year ago (I think).
Appointments are still being gazetted.
Sounds like they just stopped processing them during Covid then? I did wonder how many people are going to be told that 2020 didn’t count towards their eligibility due to squadron standowns and not attending VPN so failing to meet their hours.
Link?
Cheers
Any idea how long after attending OiC and 12 months service before you are gazetted?
Can anyone remember what the old aggregation rules were? More importantly how long a break in service could be and under what circumstances? I know 6 months was allowed off the bay but I believe you could have longer in certain circumstances?
This has come up with HQAC arguing over dates.
