How much more do we take?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
1

Numerous unnotified releases and or changes to documents that we are supposed to know about; our USP not much of a USP at the moment; stops put in place on activities that are communicated piecemeal with no rationale and no timescale for resolution; edicts on training with no resources made available; seemingly not a care in the world at “head office” of the effect of their bright ideas; projects and plans that are time filling activities not designed to come to fruition and so on.

How badly treated do we have to be before it snaps? How many have seen staff (mostly experienced) leave the organisation because they get treated poorly or feel let down by the people who don’t operate at Sqn or Wing? It feels like they are playing ducks and drakes with something those of us at Sqn and Wing care passionately about, otherwise we wouldn’t do it. Why turn up somewhere after a crappy day at work on a grotty night or at the weekend, if you didn’t care or feel there is a benefit to the youngsters? You can accept being let down by other volunteers because we are all subject to same pressures, but not by people getting paid for what I regard as the privilege of being part of the Corps.

In 32 years I have witnessed several managers who have taken up positions outside the company as they have had a jump before we push you chat and two who were escorted from the building. The only people this seems to happen to in the ACO are 1*s who ruffle feathers.

Looking at PEP’s GMG post we have to promote the organisation to youngsters and lie through our teeth, which doesn’t sit well with me, but telling the truth would not get many joining.

2

Mate I’d say from your postings on here you’ve had enough and clearly can’t take anymore! :dry:

3

I would say that there may be quite a few folks who have had enough after all the ‘goings on’ ref gliding, fieldcraft and now shooting.
About the only thing that doesn’t seem to have been affected (yet!) is adventure training.
The organisation is definitely different from the one I joined 23 years ago and in many ways the ‘fun’ has gone out of it , partly due to the hoops that have to be jumped through to get anything done. E.G. it takes weeks to get approval to do a navigation/ walk day. At work ( a college) one just speaks to the boss ref what you want to do , do risk assessment and get on with it, all within a week and all with parental and organisational approval!! No messing about, job done and good day out had by the students.
Currently the senior part of the air cadet organisation seems frightened of its own tail!!

4

I have seen the positive difference this organisation can make to some youngsters and for several a port in their otherwise stormy lives. These aren’t the ones who look like cubs with badges a plenty so won’t get a grip and grin with the high and mighty, they are effectively shunned and or segregated at school and have a miserable time, but in the Corps they are fully integrated have a bloody good time and they leave the organisation with a confidence and self-belief that enables them to do well in adult life. I’ve had a few comments of amazement from teachers who see their problem kids in uniform with stripes on their shoulders organising and running things. Once I feel we can’t make a difference to kids like this, then I’ll bin it. But it becomes more and more of a struggle as we get dumped on from on high and being prevented from delivering for no other reason than or SLT running scared.

5

Why? That has to be local issue with the person authorising. As long as the paperwork is correct, down to Activity IC and OC Sqn to ensure before sending off for authorising, then it should only take a couple of minutes to check the application, ensuring everything is in place and then, bingo, its authorised.

Also, surely its not he first time someone has done a navigation/walk day; clone an application that has already been authorised, amend to suit and submit.

6

My WHQ is put a six week lead time on PIPES…
The rationale being it take that long to check.

7

We have had that sort of lead time advertised for approvals for years.

Its not that it takes that long to simply authorise a PIPE, (or AT etc) more that the person doing so will have other tasks that can take priority, and they do not sit there just waiting for an application to arrive. They are also (shockingly) allowed leave!

Then there is also the time it takes when it gets rejected for some reason, and then the unit has to respond and it goes around again.

It may grate when you are the unit who does it right first time, every time, but usually these things will be in place to give the best chance of an activity going ahead.

MW

8

To be perfectly honest I think that a month or so is a perfectly reasonable time frame for approval, so six weeks seems OK.

The issue really is whether or not a lot of the things that require approval from above should really need the extra level of checking rather than just being authorised by the OC - the recent madness regarding shooting being a good example.

9

6 weeks is a ridiculous “normal” to apply, though I agree that it is always best getting the events in and approved as early as possible.

While they may be allowed leave, there should always be somebody else able to make the approval in their absence. As we have become so reliant on this system that absolutely must be in place.

It must also be remembered that we may simply not get 6 weeks in which to do it, or other agencies we are relying on to provide info (RAs or insurance proof for instance) may not get that to us until quite late. I also find it difficult to get staff commitment firmed up that early so we start having to fake staff lists then have to go back and ask wing to reject the activity so we can change staffing.

The system is OK but is only marginally fit for purpose. Like so much we are lumbered with it does not take due regard to the realities of the task.

10

Two weeks for a PIPE max. WExO, and OC Wing can approve them. If one is busy, the other one can check them. SIx weeks smacks of “it isn’t a priority for me and i’ll invent a rule which makes it difficult and clogs up the system”, and ultimately people end up doing the activity sans approval because they can’t be bothered.

11

The turn round should be 2/3 days and only then if they’ve needed to finish tea and biccies, paint their nails etc.

As for priority, what we want at or to do at the sqn is the priority. They are employed to do this IMO and the others can go hang, but I get the impression when I’ve spoken with our Wing, the priority is the higher organisation and we don’t even figure. Again speaking from a day job perspective, if I was to say to a customer (and that’s what we are to WHQs) that something that took only a few moments to do would take several weeks, I’d be on the end of a chat.

I don’t know about anyone else but I always get a couple of people a year come to me asking for assistance at short notice. Why we can’t authorise things ourselves with say a percentage check by Wing etc, is beyond me? Maybe that would be a bit too far, giving sqn cdrs some responsibility.

12

And another thing…

Why is there no explanation from ‘on high’ as to what the exact problem is when activities are stopped or banned temporarily ?
Surely this starts the rumour mill running.
Far better to say x has happened and we are doing y about it .Then everyone knows what the problem is. There is most certainly no need to give out names or locations.
If there has been bad practice then ‘on high’ should say so and communicate properly with the cvaf population, not issue dictats.
If there is an equipment problem, again folks should be told exactly what has happened and what is being done about it.
Relevant amendments to documents should not be sneaked out so that people only find out that something has changed weeks later. There should be some sort of ‘ammendment announcement’ page in an obvious place.
It is the coal face cvaf staff (of whatever rank) that make this organisation run and they should be fully kept in the information loop and not be treated like a bunch of amateurs . Many cvaf staff probably have far more experience of working with young people than those ‘on high’!!

13

As a recent joiner it does worry me when I hear of stuff like this.

Until very recently I was a sergeant in the Army Cadet Force and I left to join Air Cadets becuase I felt the local interpretation of the national rules were impacting on the ACF’s ability to deliver. When a March and Shoot weekend becomes a March and Darts weekend becuase of various daft rules there is a problem.

Cadets left in droves becuase we couldn’t organise simple events like an expedition even though I was nationally qualifed and when all First Aid was banned from being taught below Company level, despite having the qualification to teach it, I just couldnt see how I was meant to fill up the training program anymore and left along with 25% of the adults in the Company in the same month!

So far the Air cadets seems to enjoy a lot more self autonomy at the local unit and my squadron commander seems to be able to get things done I could only dream of when I was running the ACF unit next door. I hope it continues that way. If not, if it goes the same way as the ACF, you just end up feeling dishonest to the kids.

14

[quote=“sypland” post=22211]And another thing…

Why is there no explanation from ‘on high’ as to what the exact problem is when activities are stopped or banned temporarily ?
Surely this starts the rumour mill running.
Far better to say x has happened and we are doing y about it .Then everyone knows what the problem is.
[/quote]

the updates regarding the Tutors for example was a worhty contender for following this.

what: there is no flying
why: the aircraft are falling out the sky
reason: propellers are falling off

15

Precisely. Why qualify RCO’s to safely plan and run shooting then insist on higher authorisation. Clearly we are no longer trusted to use our skills, experience and common sense in this and many other activities.
The requirement to have a PiPE for myriad other squadron activities eg dining-in nights, annual inspection parades off squadron (local school etc) - given that we have always done the appropriate risk assessment and comprehensively briefed all concerned why the necessity to add even more layers of admin, for the squadrons and wing HQ?

16

The reason we have layers of admin is to justify jobs and because someone’s sphincter is doing farthing - two bob (one my grandad’s sayings) if we do something and just in case something happens.

17

I came across an article about Girl Scouts in the USA. Spot the familiarities!

[quote]The tech focus comes as the Girl Scouts seek to reverse a decade-long decline in membership that the group attributes to the effects of 2008 financial crisis as well as the increased competition for any young girl’s attention. In the last fiscal year alone, the organization lost 400,000 girl and adult members nationwide, dropping from 3.2 million to 2.8 million total members. At a peak in 2003, the organization had about 4 million members and 312 local and regional councils.

There is still demand to become a Girl Scout. Chávez says the organization has a wait list of 30,000 girls who want to sign-up, but not enough adult volunteer troop leaders in their areas to accommodate them, and so the national organization is trying to make it easier for those volunteers to participate. As it was, the process of going to a school cafeteria and raising your hand to volunteer hadn’t changed in 50 years. Much of the current infrastructure for troop leader volunteers involves paper forms and in-person trainings that may only happen on occasional weekends and require travel; on-boarding new volunteers, a process that includes background security checks, could take as long as two months. Now it can take as little as 70 minutes.

“One thing that we know is that a volunteer’s time is the most valuable resource they have, and it’s the one we need most of all,” says Susan Swanson, chief volunteer officer at Girl Scouts of the USA. “Research shows volunteers come back when their experience is meaningful. We want to make sure when they come to us with limited time, they’re actually spending their time with girls and not having to spend time on paper-work and administrative duties.”[/quote]

18

there weren’t any?

the Girl Scouts take the heretical view that the volunteers - the people who make the whole thing happen - are valuable people who, if the state/organisation wants them to look after other peoples kids for free, need to have the whole experience as easy, quick, pleasant and hassle-free as possible.

thankfully we’ve none of that rubbish here, where we know that regardless of how turgid, boring, long-winded, pathetic and fun free we make the ACO, sad little people who want to be us will leave their wives, children and friends twice a week to justify our very generous FTRS salaries…

19

Maybe the item about the Guides should be circulated prior to the next ACMB and made the only agenda item with discussion around the point highlighed by angus as the title for the session.

It’s not just FTRS salary(ies) but also the retirees CS salaries. Most people when they retire invariably do something in a voluntary capacity NOT jobs that have anywhere near the privileged salaries the retirees at the top of the tree in the ACO get on top of their RAF pensions. It wouldn’t be so bad if in getting these jobs their “line manager” had ‘control’ but they don’t and they have absolutely no requirement to deliver anything other than procrastination.

20

I’m going to take a view counter to that prevailing view, and one that I know won’t be popular, but I think someone needs to point this out.

Why do we have to produce lots of paperwork to prove we have done what we should have? Why do qualified people have to prove they are doing it by the book? Why is it so hard to do anything these days?

I’m going to suggest to you it is not just because some retired officer/fat civil servant/out of touch senior VR(T) (Choose your preferred scapegoat here) is trying to empire build or justify their salary and pension.

I’m going to suggest instead that it is because somewhere, sometime, a volunteer staff member (or more than one, and probably more than once) on the coal face screwed up. Maybe not intentionally, maybe for all the right reasons and with the best interests of their cadets at heart, but they screwed up, and did not do what they should have done in terms of risk assessments, operating within the rules, or the limits of their qualifications or whatever.

They will have screwed up, and someone will have got hurt, or there will have been a very near miss and people have said we have to try and make sure this does not happen again. We have to protect the cadets, the organisation and the individual members of staff from the possible consequences of such a mistake in the future.

Your preferred scapegoat will have looked at the bigger picture, seen that SOCIETY is much more litigious than it once was, that the world we live in is much less tolerant of mistakes honest or otherwise, and realised that without something to try and make sure that the volunteer went through the appropriate steps, they could end up in an very unpleasant situation.

I’m not saying I agree with the level of Risk aversion we see these days, and the time taken while the risks are even understood is sometimes frustrating but I also think that your preferred scapegoat may actually have YOUR best interests, and those of your cadets at heart.

They probably don’t understand why you are so up in arms at their honestly intended best efforts to keep the organisation running, and even now are complaining about the feckless/reckless/ lazy volunteers (or their preferred scapegoat) that are a tiny part of the organisation yet consume so much of their time.

I think maybe we should accept that volunteers don’t have the monopoly on good intentions and passion for the organisation, and the permanent staff are not solely responsible for all that is wrong with it either.

I would respectfully suggest that this thread has run its course, and everyone would do well to reflect on the content, as well as our own activities within the Corps, and ask ourselves if we really have the right to be lobbing stones everywhere, or if our house is not just the tiniest bit green.

MW