For comparison I thought I would post the CCF CFAV numbers
What’s interesting is the steady numbers except army which I assume is down to CEP.
For comparison, these are cadet numbers
Air Training Corps
2013: 45 570
2014: 44 020
2015: 43 270
2016: 43 270
2017: 41 470
2018: 41 520
2019: 43 520
2020: 44 430
2021: 37 010
2022: 35 610
2023: 40 770
2024: 43 260
4 Likes
Seems fairly stable to me.
I was surprised and impressed by the recovery post covid tbh. 8k cadets in 2 years is pretty good going.
6 Likes
Seriously impressive to be honest. An obvious, and expected drop from 2020 to 2022 from Covid, which is not surprising. But an amazing recovery from 22 to 24.
I know loads of units have been putting in a lot of work to get cadets through the door since covid, so this really shows that has worked, in spite of HQ actions and the reduction in number of CFAV.
5 Likes
Even more interesting:
I know I few units that have put very little work into getting cadets through the door, and they’re still getting loads of recruits.
5 Likes
I think the maintenance of cadet numbers is simply down to a societal behaviour that HQAC can’t manage out and has nothing to do with how appealing the RAFAC offer is.
Parents want their children supervised for them as cheaply as possible.
6 Likes
Spot on
One of my friends sat their squadron commanders course during covid and one of the cohort asked the CoS, instead of putting in all these new courses online and in classrooms, have you thought about asking the cadets what they want to do, to which he got the response:
“If we asked the cadets what activities they want to do more of, they’d just say the activities they enjoy”
Ah that’s what that spike on the Richter scale in Lincolnshire was - the sound of the course chins collectively hitting the floor.
Cognitive dissonance, willful ignorance, or naivety?
They aren’t forced to be cadets, they pay to be cadets, if they don’t enjoy being a cadet then they will stop.
Hmm, sounds a bit like the staff situation - not paid, poorly reimbursed, here by choice.
Another example of the military way and mindset being completely antagonistic and inappropriate in a voluntary organisation.
2 Likes
Give me strength…
2 Likes
That’s a perfect illustration of the completely different mindsets of some senior HQAC leaders and most volunteers. Delivering for the RAF (or what they think the RAF and industry need) vs delivering for the cadets (and developing well rounded, confident young people)
After 30+ years in the organisation, I’ve seen a huge move over the last few years away from delivering for cadets. I always thought I’d be involved with the ATC for life, like so many friends and people that I admire. It’s not such an appealing option any more, sadly.
7 Likes
This 
1 Like
These are people who think their kids actually want to do after school Maths club.
They’re on Crack.
2 Likes
CFAVs too. We broadly enjoy the same activities as the cadets. We want to get out there, hands on with flying/VGS, fieldcraft, shooting, AT, etc. Let’s have more of what the troops want instead of what HQAC want. None of us want to teach boring classroom lessons to disinterested cadets.
7 Likes
What you want doesn’t fit in with STEM direction. STEM and sitting in a classroom is very low risk and ‘safe’, that does not inspire people outside the wire and cadets have enough of classroom based lessons every day of the week at school. Cadets come to the RAFAC for something different and to be away from staring at a screen.
2 Likes
And yet we turn more and more towards it.
2 Likes
Strongly disagree.
Flying = STEM, particularly if you fold in a bit of practical principles of flight.
Many leadership tasks are tech/engineering based
AT - navigation techniques such as resection are applied mathematics.
Bit of a stretch, but even shooting has mechanical/maths elements at long range/automatic levels.
We can do practical STEM. In some places we’re already good at it (try convincing me First Aid isn’t science). We need to emphasize the practical bit more.
2 Likes