That’s an interesting position, and if I may say so, defeatist. ‘Do not go gentle into that good night…’
Better to say that RAFAC offers different opportunities now (one of the best things I’ve seen in last 2 years was a Cyber course, for example); but also to accept that some of our previous USPs (e.g. flying) are not deliverable in the way they used to be.
But - and it’s an important consideration - if RAFAC loses the support of its volunteers, it is finished; and that is a topic worthy of debate, if done in a friendly, supportive and positive way. This site doesn’t always achieve those, despite the best efforts of the moderators; but it is an important consideration. RC North tried hard through the ‘Valuing our Volunteers’ process to do this internally, and not in a public forum - although changing it to ‘Valuing our People’ risks making it too diffuse and driving the moaners back here.
If we start from the premise ‘it’s not what it used to be’ then we tend to assume the old ways were better (perhaps in some ways, like access to RAF stations they were, in other ways, like bullying and safeguarding they certainly were not).
So we need to be specific about what was better and see if we can work to bring it, or a modernised version, back.
If there are things that are worse we need to set out why they are worse and how we can improve them.
We also want to keep the things we do now that are better than what we had before. Thinking about my time as a cadet, shooting, fieldcraft and first aid are all better than they were then. Harder for CFAV to organise, granted, but objectively a better experience.
Then we have new disciplines such as cyber and hopefully soon, UAVs.
I think if we did a balanced scorecard we’re actually not doing too badly.
The areas of the cadet experience that need the most attention are flying opportunities (perhaps outside our control) and the dreadfully dated classification training. But again that is not necessarily worse than before. Surely no one liked the paper exams? It just could be better, and more engaging.
TL:DR to stay on topic, we’ve pulled out of the dive, are now back to straight and level and need the flight deck to plot course to our new destination.
Agreed!
But when you can deliver them there are better outcomes and progressions for the cadets than in the old days. (ie shooting - progressive training for a few over many getting the chance to create brass mountains)
So back to Quality v Quantity of opportunities and what is the value of the cadet experience? High Quality for a few or a lot getting an experience of something they would not be able to do elsewhere
First aid was certainly haphazard in my day. I don’t remember there being any formal syllabus, but I remember a number of casevac exercises: so we must’ve been taught something.
Shooting was infinitely better, with .22 LFMT being a routine part of normal drill nights and regular Sqn trips to the local RAF station’s barrack range (rather than rare places on wing shoots).
Fielcraft training, whilst lacking any formal recognition, was to a higher standard: with training up to section commander level. This was later surpassed by the fieldcraft element of JLs, but I think we’ve now taken a big step back with the loss of JLs and the formal syllabus topping out at section 2IC standard.
Aside from the additional hoops to jump through to make it happen, I think fieldcraft is one where the quality of training is better but how the syllabus is laid out and the restrictions undermine the progressive aspect.
When I was a cadet (12+ years ago), you could plan an exercise and teach the elements of fieldcraft the cadets needed to know to participate. The only way you could do that now is by straying from the current syllabus structure. The example I always use is that blue is supposed to be delivered on squadron, but doesn’t provide cadets with enough of the skills to participate in an exercise (e.g. cam and concealment, movements in the field, and patrols).
And to a young person, would that be more “fun” or is it a bit of badge chasing now rather than doing things just for the experience of having done it?
If it’s done well, I’d say yes. Otherwise it’s repeating the same lessons. That was certainly my experience. We either did the same over and over, or it was just whatever the instructor who was down felt like doing that night.
I agree that some elements are restrictive but taken as a whole I think they are better (vs my cadet experience anyway).
What I would add is that absolutely no one on my Squadron enjoys the current classification lessons, at least until they reach senior. Prior to lockdown the cadets seemed more accepting of it, now it’s very hard to get them to engage.
So that’s the area we’re doing worst at, at least based on the view from the coalface.
I’m fine with this. In fact, I think it’s good. Cadets are going out and doing things they wouldn’t have otherwise done. Sure, their initial reasoning might be to get the badge, but it means they’re doing something they wouldn’t have. This leads to young people finding out they might actually enjoy that thing!
I agree. I regularly deliver Youth First Aid courses, and as part of the icebreaker I ask “why did you decide to come on the course”. Most of the time a solid 80-90% say for the badge. Other 10-20% have an existing interest etc.
By the end of the course, the majority usually say they are glad they did it for the experience/knowledge, and not just for the badge. Some go away with a new interest in first aid, already asking when they can do AFA/IFA.
What actually is the better outcome? A few having progressive trg, but to the detriment of more cadets going to shoot but probably not going to gain badges?
There should be a happy medium - allow cadets to “try” the L98 - one to one supervision - no IWT or WHT, all drills done by the safety supervisor. Let them have say 20-40 rounds. Do they like it enough to want to do more? Great - let them progress. No? Then no wasted trg time for IWT, etc. But hopefully they had a bit of fun giving it a go.
This. I remember going on a school trip to ITB Strensall and the Army had school kids firing 5.56 L85s in semi-automatic with zero training but 1-to-1 supervision.
Meanwhile, in cadets, with all the training and WHTs we had to do before live firing, we were limited to the bolt action No. 8 rifle and the single-shot L98A1 (with the weird cocking handle extension and manual cocking between shots, which caused more stoppages than we got on even the L85A1).
I think the the ‘we teach it better and the cadets progress further’ thing is a false god - for me the cadets was never about producing 50 sub-Olympic shooters out of 35,000 kids, or 50 Himalayan level mountaineers out of 35,000 kids, or 50 PPL’s out of 35,000 kids, it was about taking 35,000 (or 50,000 as it used to be, but we’ll gloss over that…) kids and broadening their horizons, giving them a taste of a much bigger, more exciting world that had a lot more in it for them that what they could see from home.
300 kids from Birmingham to the Peak District, not 5 kids from Surrey to the Alps.
Some things have absolutely got better, but the cadet experience, the list of the stuff they’ve done by the time they leave, the opportunity for an individual cadet to shine in an utterly foreign environment - they are not on that list.
I wonder if there was a ‘golden age’ between em when I was a cadet and now. IE are we feeling the results of more recent scaling back of activities (gliding pause, JL etc)?
I was a cadet in the late 80’s - early 90’s, from 13 to 17. By the time I left, I’d got more flying, camps, shooting and AT in my 3822 than my entire Sqn of 30+ cadets has done.
Not more than any of them, more than all of them put together…
If we’ve ‘levelled out’, then we’ve done so in the style of a Buccaneer with grass stains on its belly…