Does anyone know the process for a new CCF (RAF section) volunteer getting started and going into uniform as an officer?
I started volunteering for occasional weeks just after Easter and have now completed the school side of the process (lots of paperwork, DBS, etc). I’ve also completed Pers1-01, 1-10 and 1-19.
I can find a little bit of information on how the process might work if I were in a community based Sqn but nothing really on how it works if the appointment is within the CCF.
My aim here is to seek to understand the process that’s to come so that I can be prepared for what’s next. As far as I understand I’m not yet on BADER/ Westminster.
What will happen is that your joining forms, with personal data on, will be lost multiple times. But they’ll deny a data breach because they won’t ever have logged them as received in the first place. Eventually they’ll find the right desk and an interview will be arranged with a member of TEST staff. After that, you’ll be appointed as an Acting Pilot Officer and able to book into your week-long course at Cranwell, following which you get promoted to Pilot Officer.
So there’s no regional board just an interview with TEST staff. Sounds like there are far less hoops to jump through than I suspected. Anything I should be revising for the interview?
Anyone know how long it takes to get onto BADER? Reading around it looks like that’s where most of the information I may need is stored.
Not CCF but I’d be willing to bet there will be a regional board now, as CCF RAF has been sort of subsumed into the ATC Regional structure.
The TEST interview would follow the same as a ATC candidate’s Wing Filter Interview, and then you’ll proceed to a Regional Board. If you pass the both of em, you wait a couple weeks for your formal appointment and then youre an Acting Pilot Officer.
While my knowledge of CCF procedures is somewhat dated it used to be the case , certainly in independent schools, that the Head would appoint CCF officers from within the teaching staff as part of their job. Is it therefore now the case that the RC will have/ has the power to overturn that decision, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Speak to your TEST SNCO they should be providing you with a work book that gives you all the information. Feedback from the 1st interview will prime you with areas that the RC will want…
No need for any CFAV in CCF to be school staff - lots are local volunteers. The traditional model is that they were teachers > officers, but as stated SNCOs are possible now and ours is just a local volunteer who decided to switch from ATC to CCF. Equally, our Army section has one of the school maintenance staff as an officer.
At the great risk of going off at a tangent (and my direct involvement is now somewhat dated). Given the new CoC responsibilities of the RC for the CCFs and the selection process for new CCF officers SNCOs and CIs, in the unfortunate situation where something goes drastically wrong at a CCF event who carries the legal responsibility ( and who would the parents consider ultimately responsible) the RC or the Head?
It completely depends on what went wrong and why. The same can be said within the ATC. If something goes wrong because of CFAV negligence then it’ll be the CFAV in the dock. (For example knowingly letting cadets go shooting without supervision or something similarly silly) If it went wrong in spite of the CFAV following all the rules and doing everything right, then it would be MOD legal/HQAC in the dock. (For example a cadet dying from heat injury even though the CFAV follwed all policy, but the coroner said that policy was inadequate)
The same will be for the CCF. Responsibly didn’t always lie with the DDH per-se. You may also have shared liability.
I can’t really see a situation where it actually ends up with the RC holding the responsibility, even as the DDH.
On school premises: the head. The H&S legislation is very clear on this, and this is why the RC is not in my chain of command: she can’t be, as nothing can take away the head’s responsibility for pupils on school premises. (Things can happen on school premises that are outside RAFAC rules, too, although if this involves strictly ‘military’ things like shooting then it would be a foolhardy head to allow them.)
Off school premises: the RC. We have to follow the same procedures, therefore, as ATC units within the region.
Of course, if your school premises are extensive, there are all sorts of fun things you can do on site.
In the bigger picture especially with the “regional boards” it is your to lose. The organisation CCF or ATC cannot afford to be throwing away volunteers. Not sure what you do job wise however if you are a teacher or in some form of the education sector then you will have the bare bones already. The TEST/Wing level is usually there to check your understanding of RAFAC ACP 007 (Astra) and general RAFAC specific safeguarding policies need to be understood the Regional boards might be more RAF specific but they aren’t looking for someone to join the RAF, a small bit of knowledge of the structure and aircraft doesn’t go a miss especially as we are a uniformed youth organisation with an interest in the RAF. However don’t panic about it
TY for your explanation and I understand the logic, but I offer one last comment/observation. I read a lot (including on this forum)about the tightening up of process and regulation around RAFAC activity. This appears to be designed to protect the cadet, CFAVs and the reputational and legal risk to the RAF. I wonder if a Head would ever be able to protect a schools reputational risk by saying " one of my pupils was injured (or worse) on a school approved activity but as it was off the school premises its nothing to do with me and I therefore I refer you to the RAFAC RC".