Bless guess immature responses wrt to FOIs are as low as it gets these days, and name callng just doesnt do either side of the discussion any good
I think the failure in Comms is the biggest driver we have for FOI’s.
The CoC have to understand that volunteers aren’t going to accept being just told “you will now do X” or “you can no longer do Y”. We aren’t employees and many of us hold roles of significant responsibility out in the real world. Unlike the service personnel that they are used to dealing with we are unlikely to take an order at face value, we want the why and if that information isn’t forthcoming people will use whatever means they can to get it.
Now is that a misuse for the system? I would say it’s what the system is for, to keep people accountable.
The other most common type of FOI would be a subject access request, people wanting access to twirl own data, it’s horrendous the information that people have sound out through SAR’s (prejudged investigations etc), again is that a misuse or is that what the system is for?
Now are there pointless malicious ones? Absolutely, but they are the minority.
If the CoC could be open and honest about why decisions are made and if it could treat people fairly then the vast majority of FOI’s will disappear.
Now hopefully the upcoming Town halls will begin this process, beyond that I think IBN’s need to be reworked to add explanations and context behind them as well, if we can get both of those things then the FOI’s will be a problem of the past.
Ignoring FOI’s because they are inconvenient would be the same as creating the CFC because Service Complaints were a nuisance, it didn’t address the issue just made the symptom go away.
9 Likes
Agreed
I beg to differ. The more time they spend redacting emails with big marker pens, the less time they have to think what they can ban next! And that surely benefits the cadets. 
1 Like
Theyvwill find the time to keep you grounded
Whilst it wasn’t a FoI, the below example is probably reflected widely when dealing with well meaning but frivolous enquiries.
A question was raised through the CoC about the saving that could be achieved by not printing Annual Appraisals (F6000, F7500, later SJAR & OJAR) at every stage. A Sgt & I were tasked to investigate, we based our calculations on each report being printed upto 5 times (probably in reality few were printed this many times) the number of sheets of paper consumed, average life of printer toner, cost of a ream of paper and a staple per copy. If the report was printed once only, across the whole RAF the savings would be approximately £10 per year, the cost of 2 NCOs spending a day coming to that conclusion well over £300.
I’d like to submit an FOI on if “Cab” is really who we’re lead to believe on this forum?
“Cab” has turned up on ACC - to engage.
The US are sending warbirds to the Middle East on preparation of an Israeli / Iran war.
“Friendly forces” are trying to deploy various fast jets to Ukraine.
Lots of training required.
Are we really sure that AOC 22gp is rocking up on an air cadet forum to chat with CFAV?
Shouldn’t he be busy elsewhere?
It just seems to have been accepted without question.
1 Like
More the concern of CAS DCAS AND AOC 2, 3 nd 11 Groups.
The army have done most of the training for Ukranian forces with other airfrces as well as the RAF undertaking flight training. If they have to upgrade the defence posture the first thingthat will stopis trainging and instructors et al moved to operational units.
2 Likes
The sorry state of affairs in HQAC means it’s easier to believe that AOC 22Gp has turned up rather than CRAFAC.
Because the latter would mean CRAFAC understanding the needs of the people he “leads”
1 Like
No FOI needed - the Mod team is contactable.
It has been confirmed privately; impersonation is against the AUP and a suspected or proven breach would have been acted upon.
6 Likes
FOI won’t work in this instance. You could email me directly? Get the address from your Wing staff.
Busy elsewhere? RAFAC falls under my Group so I am
doing my job…and doing all the other things I should be doing too.
14 Likes
Not my quote, but I wish I had thought of it.
Our siloes have siloes that are siloed.
And firewalled. And ringfenced. Then put in a silo. It’s the type of thing to give professional PMs palpitations.
It doesn’t help when numerous other people thrown their personal pennyworth into the hat - locally, one SME (not shooting) insists that all documents to be added to an SMS event MUST be in PDF - certainly not specified anywhere that I’m aware of. This apparently is to stop naughty CFAVs changing files once the event has been approved… Clearly no idea about the digital signature / trail that your leave in the Bader system everytime that you access it / do anything within it!
Not just RAFAC, but the RAF and MOD in general.
To date, there have been 16 FOI requests that I can see, for the Grob Tutor ‘training manual’ and FRC’s.
Some requests were rejected and some were successful.
If the MOD wants to save time and money, and stop these ‘frivolous’ requests - presumably from flight sim enthusiasts - they should just openly publish them.
1 Like
Also forgetting that to edit a doc you need to delete and re-upload, which would work precisely the same way with a PDF.
Anyway, FOIs…
I’ve seen a lot of daft requests, but then also many that are (sometimes poorly) targeted at a relevant area of interest.
Am I right in thinking the RIAT 2022 review was released via FOI?
For many, though there may be some with axes to grind, a lot of it just seems like frustration at the lack of internal transparency and lack of faith in the CoC to be honest and open if asked.
Yes. A 22 Gp investigation was done, and only released by FOI. I’d not have seen it otherwise.
4 Likes
Seems like a pretty good use of FOI in that case then.
8 Likes
Most service personnel in fact do not take orders at face value. The training schools emphasise this challenge by teaching different styles of leadership based on the situation - transactional Vs transformational for one example.
I think the approach the HQ takes is the mushroom method mentioned by others - feed them 
and keep them in the dark. Combined with a healthy scoop of patronisation/condescension
2 Likes
This challenging of orders was recently shown by a Group Captain resigning for being told to implement an unlawful and illegal order. She stood tall and said no.
2 Likes
I suppose this is now a broader communications thread, so hopefully not too off topic.
I have observed a culture in the organisation of either withholding information or ignoring requests.
Replies such as ‘you’ll find out in due course’ or no response at all.
The result is having to contact people several times over just to get acknowledgement that something was seen. This was both CFAV and paid staff, but our paid staff have (mostly) become much better at sending a response, even if just a holding email. CFAV, not so much.
It seems to be a RAFAC thing, I deal a fair bit with the regulars and they don’t do this, they actively send (and request) acknowledgement.
3 Likes
And I think this is where a large number of FOIs stem from. There’s legal recourse if they’re not answered, whereas there’s no recourse through the informal routes.
As we’ve discussed on here quite a lot before now, good timely comms prevents the need for FOIs. But for whatever reason, HQAC seem to see FOIs as whinging CFAVs being awkward.
So to answer the thread’s question; FOIs are normally “bad” but HQAC have made them a necessity and aren’t doing enough to make the cultural changes needed to change this fact.
6 Likes