coughfake cadet profilecough
Just use the general UL account
User name is the Sqn Number, resets go to the general account
Unlimited exam attempts
1 Like
5 Likes
Get your OCs permission for that as it costs the Squadron.
Might technically be fraud in some eyes.
Why is this not published…!
#hidden facts
2 Likes
Done this and got staff to do it and periodically I get cadets to do the screenshot etc and use them as end of lesson questions.
For staff doing the exams is a good way of going some way to learning what the cadets need to know.
When the exams went online, given the belly aching that the old exam paper machine was ropey, on its last legs, couldn’t get the questions off it, quelle surprise the questions were exactly the same.
1 Like
I wish! Things seemed easier in those days! Actually on my 10th year in the Corps, 3rd as staff
Forgot that issue exists for you guys. In the CCF SMS entries mean nothing and we get our grant based on the Westminster figures. And I know all about SSIs and fraudulent reporting on there unfortunately.
I realise this is just one example, but I wouldn’t be a fan of this as a standard package for all - tying niche interests into progression as a one-size-fits-all solution would make the issue of Googling without understanding even worse.
What I could get on board with, is producing packages of three subjects for use at Senior and Master that niche into a specialism. Tie exam-tested theory elements in with practical application and possibly with the current Bronze/Silver levels where appropriate.
So you could be a Senior Cadet Comms Specialist (Radio, Cyber, Something), Aviation Specialist, Field Specialist (Fieldcraft, Shooting, Navigation), Training Specialist (CDI, MOI, Leadership), etc if there are more possibilities.
Contentiously, I would split MAC under this system:
Cadet Specialist, taking the same topic area a level higher
Cadet Generalist, taking a different topic area to the first level
Master Cadet Specialist, taking 2 topics to the CS Level
Master Cadet, taking all topics to the CS Level
It sounds convoluted and difficult to manage, but with self-study at the higher Specialist levels (they should be independently motivated to achieve these) the only practical difference for management is a different/additional certificate and an ability to clearly indicate a cadet’s specialism and interest when handing out jobs or identifying topic instructors.
The specialist/generalist split also allows an extra level of progression to those who plateau - a cadet struggling with the highest level has the option to pivot to Cadet Generalist
It also extends the process, alleviating the issue of MACs with nothing else to do for several years.
Not saying it’s the best system, or perhaps even high on the list of “Giminion’s Best Ideas”, but I think it would be an interesting system, lengthens and extends progression, and is more cohesive with the PTS (and I think as well the broader ASTRA changes related to training development with increased relevance and cohesion).
3 Likes
I like this.
I’d also be keen to add a more advanced history & structure of the RAF at Snr / MAC which doubles as a refresher or train the trainer for those teaching the juniors, and I’d make Air Power compulsory (or at least very strongly recommended) too. It cements air mindedness in the snr cadets without needing overly detailed understanding of bits of a plane,
3 Likes
Classification training was better in the early 1980s when I was a cadet: the text books were simple to understand; real people taught the lessons - in our squadron’s case, by the Staff Cadets (pre-Master Cadet title for a cadet awarded the yellow lanyard after completing the classification programme) or knowledgeable CIs, both of whom obviously knew the subject matter; we cadets could discuss the points of the lesson with someone who knew their stuff; plenty of training aids were used, as well as blackboards to draw on; the exam was a set of three 25 question multi-choice papers sent out twice a year, so no rushing through the subjects, everyone progressing at the same rate, and so on.
I’ve never liked e-learning at all or PowerPoint all that much: in the former method the computer hasn’t been in the ATC or RAF and used the skills for real, unlike a human instructor who might have been and done it and can therefore illustrate the relevance of the lesson; in the latter one is often locked into teaching a lesson which might be poorly written with bad slides. Plus the cadets have probably suffered ‘death by Powerpoint’ at school earlier in the day, and might want a change of scene at the Cadet Centre.
Classification Training is the core reason why the Air Cadets exists: in order to train young people to know one end of an aircraft or a rifle from another if they have to go to war in the RAF. If we lose interest in that, then we as an organisation become merely a crèche, or unpaid pre-university tutors for other peoples’ children, rather than part of the defence of our nation and way of life. If that becomes the case, I’ll be invoicing the parents at the going rate (75 quid an hour, discounted to £50 group rate?). 
2 Likes
Have to disagree, completely, sorry.
The cadets exists as a safe space for 12-18(20) year olds to develop as young people into whoever they want to be. One small part of that is that they can spend some time following a STEM focussed progressive training syllabus, a small part of that being the classifications.
It’s not the Air Defence Cadet Corps anymore, the purpose isn’t to get people into the RAF. If it was, the RAF would put a non-zero amount of effort into trying to target recruitment at them. That they don’t bother is pretty telling.
That lots of our cadets look towards aviation based careers is a helpful byproduct, as a country it’s invaluable. But the sort of cadets we have likely would have leaned that way anyway.
As to your point about the exams. I’m in two minds. It was definitely more rigorous with paper exams, that’s undeniable. For what though, a pretty niche BTEC that most people just stuck in the bin? Having knowledge subject matter experts to teach is fantastic, but how many squadrons have a typhoon pilot on tap to go through airmanship or an ESA engineer to teach space studies?
The benefit of the new format teaching material is that anyone with an ounce of instructional ability can sit in front of the material, press play and it can be delivered to a high level.
Look at the updated first class and leading material, it’s fantastic! Far better than a shoddy photocopied handout of ACP19.
5 Likes
This is a load of utter rubbish.
This might have been the case 70 years ago. But not any more.
Our aims are:
- To promote and encourage among young people a practical interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force.
- To provide training which will be useful in the Services and civilian life.
- To foster the spirit of adventure and develop qualities of leadership and good citizenship.
Cadets going into the services is not our main focus. It is a part of what we do, but no where near the core reason we exist today. We exist to give young people a safe place to experience the above aims.
What @Rexan has said is spot on. The new training materials coming out are fantastic.
5 Likes
I am not sure i buy this argument given this was the standard back in “the early 1980s” when you suggest things were “better”.
Now, just as back then, CFAVs mirrored the bets classroom resources and training material available - back in the 80s it was likely that the Cadets sat in classification lessons had sat through similar format “death by lecture” lessons “at school earlier in the day”.
I am not suggesting Powerpoints are the only way to learn, far from it and this is shown best with other topics, but in a classroom environment it is what our Cadets are used to and familiar with
Crying “it was better in my day” screams of a misunderstanding in how the world has changed - yes things were better in the past, but not everything, and nor are those same “norms” considered acceptable or workable now. While a classroom “lecture” format is still valid, the suggestion of a textbook for instance is harder for students in todays world to grasp
2 Likes
Wait, your sqn staff teach senior/master lessons?
All of that is done by us older cadets, and we have to try and wrap our heads around the subjects, whilst most of us teaching (3 FS with moi) are at points in school were we have mock and real exams. That’s not mentioning the other things we do. We aren’t exactly lacking in staff numbers either…
The difference I see today from when I was a cadet on paper exams is that the amount of school work including homework that is expected of our cadets is far greater than I ever had to worry about. This meant that when I came to cadets twice a week and one of them was learning via the ACPs or doing an exam, I didnt mind because I wasn’t doing much schoolwork outside of the school hours.
I like the fact that our training is digital. Does it need updating, absolutely. Would having subject SMEs on every unit be better, absolutely. Does a cadet after each classification care if they were taught by a SME or a CFAV who is just willing to help get them through their exam to get another badge, I doubt it!
1 Like
Every squadron is different and it would be wrong for us to say anything specific about how your squadron is run without more context.
However, the ‘I’ in ‘CI’ stands for Instructor, in theory any CI ought to be able to have a good stab at teaching any subject. That’s why the learning material is being completely overhauled, to enable that.
With the BTEC changes etc it’s safe to say that classifications are in a state of flux, it’s unlikely that your current arrangement, which I agree doesn’t sound optimal, will continue permanently. Expect rolling changes to the syllabus and teaching structure over the next couple of years.
1 Like
yeah, the maturity of some of our CIs are, ummm, well questionable at best. They are mainly past cadets who aged out in covid and stayed on. they generally only teach second-class cadet lessons, but only when an instructor cadet can’t. that being said, we do have some great staff members, in uniform and out, but they either have different roles and jobs to carry out, or arent regularly down enough to carry out one chunk of classification lessons
I make a point of doing so. I teach less than I did when I was a CI/ new officer but even now as the ‘boss’ I think it is important. We are a training organisation after all. And I enjoy it.
1 Like
I’m well aware of the aims of the Air Cadets; its what is behind it all that I’m interested in i.e. the big picture. In 1940 is was to train young men for war, in 1980 to ensure a supply of recruits for a much larger RAF during the Cold War. Now we seem to be another social welfare service, judging by the replies I am getting. If we’re being used to paper over the cracks in British society, then there is a limit to what volunteers can do to level up opportunities for young people. Britain has always been a country with great inequalities: us teaching young people how to about turn on the march or ranks of the RAF won’t change that. Cadets benefit from our teaching, but inequality of opportunity where they come from will remain unsolved. I’m going out this evening to teach cadets aeronautical and uniformed service subjects, not to be their life coach or support worker, though I wouldn’t mind being paid the going rate for that if that’s the case rather than crèche attendant or private after-hours school tutor. 
Someone has to be military and defence minded in the United Kingdom: the RAF might even expand again in the near future. We are, after all in a shooting war with Russia, doing everything short of putting British soldiers into combat, a Cold War with China similar to the one we had with the Warsaw Pact nations, and to add to those commitments, our Prime Minister recently showed his support for Israel in the latest installment of their endless conflict with insurgency, with the risk of a resurgent terrorist campaign here in the UK. We’ve seen how much support Palestine has in this country. So a lot of taking sides, but not enough firepower or numbers to back it up if the bad guys take us up on it. Sooner or later the Americans will be getting tired of doing most of the work for the defence of the Free World, and the Ukrainians of doing all the fighting and dying, and we’re going to have to do our fair share once again. And that’s just the military side of things young people will have to deal with in their next several decades. 
Anyway, back to the subject: some ‘old-skool’ methods and practices are worth hanging on to, and others can stay back where they belong. The old multi-choice Classification exams weren’t really that hard - the answers were in front of you on the paper after all. You just signed out the textbooks for a few weeks in order to revise - there were no paper handouts either, because photocopiers weren’t in widespread use then.
Generally, every improvement in life is balanced by something not being as good or as simple as it was. There’s not enough room in the human world for constant improvement in all areas: something has to give.