Although I get where you are coming from it is definitely not a barrier to being in uniform with us not being “full time officers”. The “PI” rank for me in the ACF is a great system.
https://www.livingwithdisability.org/post/support-dog-helps-owner-fly-high
1 Like
I think for the fairly limited time we spend with the parent it’s not really a problem.
See - this is where it falls down, because actually MTP really isn’t protective clothing - generally its worse quality that something you can get Civvie (certainly my Paramo jacket is warmer, comfier, dryer, lighter etc than anything I have to wear because it’s issue). If the RA is stipulating MTP for drone flying - when it isn’t even stipulated for range work or fieldcraft, I suggest this is overkill and the RA should be reviewed and made more appropriate. What if a cadet doesn’t have “issue” mtp - can they not take part?
2 Likes
Personally I would rather lose the SNCO element & have just CI and officers.
There seems to a cult of people only becoming SNCOs as the way into uniform where in reality most Fg Off have more cadet experience that the rafac Sgts & FS.
Otherwise all you are doing is putting off the question of “why aren’t people becoming officers”
The idea of using all the RAF ranks gets booted into touch as it’s not what happens tri-service (& doesn’t really make sense for the time period people are volunteer)
More practically though a critical statistic is needed first - what is the retention rate for new volunteers I.e. the return on investment.
You would need to know
% of new staff who stay longer than 3 months
% of new CIs who complete their probation
% of staff who stay longer than 3ye
Someone becoming an SNCO results in costs for uniform, training at cranwell, interview boards, misc admin, VA & mileage.
Putting a financial value on volunteer hours is always tricky but one way is to use minimum wage as a baseline (I.e. the cost of someone bring paid minimum wage to do the hours).
Then you have the final question
After how many hours volunteered by a SNCO is the cost returned to the organisation?
With a CI you have dbs (£9?), jumper (£35?), polo top (£15?) & bout 10 - 20 hrs non residential training, so ballpark figure of probably around £150 all in to get them up & running.
So using minimum wage equivalent the return on investment in a CI is bout 12 - 16 hrs. Even trebling that is quite a quick turn around.
If you only retain a third of new volunteers who “pay back” the expenditure to recruit them quite quickly then it’s more cost effective to start everyone as a CI first.
Anyone fancy doing the numbers for SNCOs or officers?
1 Like
This was another rod for our own backs. Certain Regional Commandants were making Regional Boards overly difficult so Wings stopped putting people forward and kept them as SNCO’s.
3 Likes
Hey,
before blasting in and saying MTP isn’t protective clothing, maybe consider that the risk it may be mitigating in the RA has nothing to do with an environmental risk. Something which I think you have assumed in your reply?
Thanks for your suggestion of a review, but the RA is sound and relates to one of the larger drones, also operated by the RAF Regt and Police, where the same mitigation is used. This drone will only be flown by those trained to be instructors, who can be any CFAV. I believe we currently have one who is a CI, but this will undoubtedly increase this year and beyond.
1 Like
Calling it PPE is the biggest load of pish that keeps getting regurgitated. It is merely functional hide in the countryside clothing.
1 Like
Maybe RPAS turning into large ball of fire or going rogue and trying to shoot the operator?
This might sound extreme, but I am genuinely interested as to what wearing MTP/PCS mitigates against that normal civilian clothing cannot.
2 Likes
PPE can be any appropriate equipment which is standardised & has known properties than mitigate risk or most suitable for wear.
MTP is considered ppe for shooting, fieldcraft & others because it’s standardised. Otherwise you need to individually assess or proscribe everyone’s clothing. Picking MTP is a quick win to jump over the initial barriers for the drones.
The “Why MTP in particular” question is where the risk assessments & rationale comes in to allow for alternatives that meet the same criteria (which is pertinent for CIs)
Have you been watching Season 2 of Vigil? 
It’s probably not the best reference for military… well anything really but particularly drones.
1 Like
Nope…
1 Like
Good decision 
However, this argument falls apart when you remember that cadets and staff buy their own, it’s not issued. Some people have ‘proper’ issue stuff. Some people have fake/cheap versions.
If we are going to refer to it as PPE for cadets, CIs or whatever then it should still be checked, in the same way you might check someone’s waterproof jacket before a DofE exped. And if we’re going to be checking it properly, then it doesn’t matter if it’s MTP or anything else.
However, I am guessing @Hercules reasoning for MTP being PPE in this instance is going to be more of a public viewpoint risk rather than a getting injured risk. That’s a guess, as the RPAS OM has no mention of MTP or uniform…
1 Like
So this is a bit of a side bar but MTP is produced from the same supplier to a defined spec. so it ticks the box of “suitable clothing”. It doesn’t have to go more detailed than that.
It still is technically speaking PPE & yes should be checked by instructing staff e.g. no rips or tears, smock for fieldcraft & shooting, boots have sufficient tread etc. we do it as common place uniform standards but it is one of those under lying standards like have bootlaces done up.
I believe they’re referring to the rip offs that some people end up with, particularly the teeny cadets in the Kombat brand stuff.
2 Likes
Yeah, exactly this.
If we are saying MTP is PPE, then this cheap crap surely doesn’t cut it? In the same way if someone turns up to DofE with some sort of Temu waterproof, I generally offer to loan them a decent one.
and as soon as “PPE” is not issued and relied on being self bought it is not PPE - if it truly is PPE it MUST be provided by the “organisation”
While some may choose to suggest MTP is PPE for shooting and fieldcraft, these are environments where CIs are not mandated to wear MTP. the only shooting environment that is permitted for CIs to wear MTP is during SAAI lesson delivery, so not even on the range/near live firing.
which i except fully - however CIs are not required to wear it in shooting or fieldcraft environments.
the RAs if indeed they cover “clothing” may well indicate “all personnel will wear MTP uniform” but in doing so, to follow the RA strictly, either excludes all CIs, or forces them to wear uniform they are not entitled to
1 Like
Another pointer which I am happy to be get my helmet on for is the “parent CI’s” although some parents go onto civ comm, some only wish to “serve” whilst their cadet/s are at the Squadron. Their interest (and we have had a few) is invaluable to some extent for transport and “shark watch” on parades, first aid, radios and random extra hobbies to create new interesting nights such as photography or radios etc. However once their cadet/s leave the organisation they don’t wish to continue their service as they aren’t driving their kids to and from the squadron.
But in our world, MTP ISN’T PPE for shooting or fieldcraft - otherwise all CIs would have to wear it, and they don’t, therefore it isn’t PPE.
Oh and if it is in any way PPE, and not just a a dress up costume, I want it issued for free as it’s a legal requirement for me to have it, and it be provided free of charge!
2 Likes
I’m hardly “blasting in”, I’ve been in for 22 years, possibly longer than you my good sir. 
From the write-up of his book, I make it 18 years regular RAF service and volunteering of one kind or another for the last 28.