Show me your evidence.
No worries. I’m going into a meeting in 10 mins but will source the evidence after that.
However it speaks volumes that a civilian living halfway around the world is having find the evidence for the AOC responsible for the org.
2 Likes
Hang on…you are not finding the info because I need it (I am quite happy with my understanding and the ability of my Team to provide the information). You have deliberately skewed the conversation to infer a criticism whereas all I am doing is asking you to show your evidence. That’s ok, isn’t it…otherwise this forum becomes and Ill-informed free-for-all. Back to previous comments I have made. I have very thick skin and have 32 years of experience where I know I don’t know everything…very happy to see info which corrects any misunderstanding. Stats from 1985 probably less helpful than stats since 2020.
A very large percentage of serving members of the Royal Air Force were air cadets. Although the ACO is not a recruiting organization, some 41% of Officer, 51% of all Aircrew (including pilots, navigators, air electronics operators, air engineers and air loadmasters) and 17% of airmen/airwomen recruits per annum into the Royal Air Force are ex-air cadets.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/63/63we136.htm
From 2005.
10 Likes
In fairness, the RAF recruits far fewer people now than it did before. A drop is inevitable.
I asked for an answer to a question based on my understanding of the facts as they have been presented to me, and then you responded in frankly a childish and unprofessional manner, unbecoming of even the most junior military personnel.
I would encourage you to reflect on the way you have responded to questions here. It may help you to understand why there is such a divide between CFAVs and the Ivory Tower.
7 Likes
4 Likes
Genuinely sad that you read my comments like that noting that I even opened myself to the fact that I may be wrong. Evidence is key. Asking for it is not childish (not, I think, the language I used). Still, really grateful for your support to the organisation.
I think, everyone, that this getting off topic & it’s getting a bit heated rather than proper constructive debate.
Perhaps time for a cuppa & peep can pick it up later. 
2 Likes
I agree.
But just replying “nope” when you disagree with something someone said is a little childish. Especially when you choose to ignore the fact they acknowledged it may have dropped from 50% to 30%.
2 Likes
And none of the above debate changes the fact that it’s still a majority of people joining who haven’t been in cadets.
3 Likes
Which is not relevant as we are not a direct recruitment organisation for the RAf or the armed forces.
Yes there needs to be some quid pro quo for those who put up the money but it doesn’t necessarily mean recruitment, particularly if we went full independent similar to the Sea Cadet Corp.
Interestingly the CCF are meant to be a passive recruitment organisation.
2 Likes
With respect you didn’t open yourself to the fact you may be wrong. You very rudely replied “Nope” like a petulant teenager unwilling to consider that someone else may be correct. Then you just declared “show me your evidence” in a rude and combative manner. At no point did you appear willing to engage in a discussion or to admit you were wrong until the evidence was posted.
9 Likes
It transpires that there are many different figures out there for the percentages of regular and reserve personnel who were once part of RAFAC/ACO - as the source below demonstrates.
I’d be curious to know what the progress against some of the expectations is:
- The RAF denies cadets will have fewer chances to fly, or the changes are simply cost-cutting, and says it will buy more powered training planes.
- “The reason why young people like joining the Air Cadets is they get the opportunity to fly. If you reduce the number of bases, you make it more and more difficult for young people, particularly those from disadvantaged homes to access the flying opportunities.”
- Julian Brazier, reserves minister, said the fleet had been neglected for 15 years. He said the new plan would see the number of powered Grob Tutor planes rise from 45 to 70.
Actually, I would have thought the opposite. If they are recruiting fewer, and the RAFAC has remained generally the same, then the percentage should in-fact go up. Maybe the lack of resource from the RAF to the RAFAC is having a detrimental affect on recruitment, ie the shocking state of infrastructure on RAF stations, and the lack of annual camp placements for cadets to do work-experience with their chosen trade. I did work experience on every one of my camps (year 1 - RAF Padre, year 2 ATC, year 3 RAF Police, year 4 RAF Regt, year 5 engineering) and a full two week work experience placement at RAF Windy-In-North-Wales. Those opportunities just don’t exist now for the majority of cadets - even the opportunity for a cadet to go on camp every year is gone.
6 Likes
Not a good move for the RAFAC, but you could close the majority of non-flying bases and have a large multi-story block in a city centre. There is no need for a massive real-estate for places like High Wycombe - block of offices on the first three floors, next floor gym, shop, clothing stores, canteen for the JRs, next floor JR accom, next floor Sgt Mess, next floor OM. Top floor - helipad. Basement, swimming pool. Job done.
1 Like
Sad to lose work experience on camp. The last time I saw it was at a camp at Valley in ?2007 when there was so much on offer I had to detail one officer to do nothing else all week but coordinate and drive cadets to and from work experience. Recently I was contacted by an ex cadet who was on that camp and who wanted me to confirm to a potential employer that he had indeed done work experience on the flight line with the engineers - they refused to believe it!
Sadly I think Safeguarding killed that off.
5 Likes
All about the ‘perceived’ safety issues, a bit like car parking 
1 Like
The bigger problem is the RAFAC is hamstrung by tiers of red tape and regs to do even basic activities which other orgs can do without.
So for example and these are real world examples from my long and commended time as a Sqn OC.
- I want to take cadets via walking from sqn, down the road and round corner (400 meters, local estate roads no B roads) to the local sports field to play football and rounders.
In RAFAC world, i needed to arrange TOPL and private indemnity. This along side submitting an AT activity… not for the sports field activity. But for the walk there and back.
SCOUTS - just get a Risk assess made up and go do it.
- I want to run a basic weapons training day and indoor air rifle shoot on a TS25 target set up in my main hall.
RAFAC - submit a RAM or RASP or whatever its called this week.
Get sufficent MOD level trained staff who have given up at least 8 days for training (2 weekends for SAAI and 2 weekends for RCO). Then fill in countless reems of paperwork afterwards.
SCOUTS - turn up via parent drop off at a bisley approved shooting centre / range. Pay their staff. Scouts shoot air rifle or other weapons.
Shooting on scout site. Basic ‘ticket’ held by staff to run the activity.
These are 2 of 100 different examples i could give.
Dont get me started on model flying, gliding, sports in general, cinema visit, museum visits, community engagement events, overnight camps, day exercises or basically anything actually fun the cadets want to do.
Sqn Cdrs are simply not trusted to plan, deliver and assure anything anymore.
And dont give me the pattered out tripe about DDH.
If a CFAV is negligent and a cadet dies it isnt just the CoC that ends up in the dock its the CFAV also.
In all my experience it seems too obvious now, that the reality is the CoC would rather it be the CFAV alone in said dock and not them. So the DDH tripe is expoused and red tape layers build.
Like a parent at the end of their teather… im no longer angry with the org, nor am i surprised.
Just disappointed.
And as any parent knows, there is nothing greater than that.
11 Likes