There’s no stretch to make target shooting stem complimentary. It’s all all about accuracy, eliminating the error, correcting for wind & range statistically analysis, engineering solutions plus others.
Service rifle though does tend to be a lead to brass converter 
It’s quite possible - indeed on some cases impossible not - to get STEM into shooting, AT, field craft and many other things.
But in order for the kids to be not instantly be turned off by you shoehorning STEM into it, and for them to absorb it, you do need to be outside for it to work.
I fear that this is the problem. I can’t decide if HQAC is full of vampires (unlikely, not charismatic enough…), or that bloke from Asterix who thought the sky was about to fall on everyone’s heads.
Actually, it’s much more likely it’s just full of sad cases who dream of being accountants, but who can’t handle the excitement involved.
The deadest thing in the ACO is the motto - they should change it to Careful Now… and just be done with it.
First aid is generally rote learning, to secure the basic principle of CABCDE, the sciences come much later with applied physiology, and understanding of biological sciences. You can teach someone easily how to stop someone bleeding out, which what they teach schools where I live, but they don’t need to know the science behind a coagulation cascade.
They don’t. But we can promote STEM by giving a very brief bit of science.
But we digress.
I’m kinda glad that the statistics reflect the feeling on the ground.
Whatever I show up to at wing level it’s the same group of staff. All off-squadron activity appears to be delivered by about 30 people, with varying degrees of overlap between subject areas.
If a couple of them are busy with non-RAFAC things (i.e. Life), and there’s two concurrent wing activities, something has to be cancelled or scaled back. That’s the level we’re already dealing with. Cadets are missing out.
Indeed.
I would be intersted in seeing the churn rate for cadets .
Are we simply becoming really good at intakes and recruitment and losing cadets almost as fast as we gain them, with this growth indicating an average length of service of approx 2 years.
Understanding this would help get to grips with demand and enjoyment levels.
This.
It would be nice if HQ did a quarterly statistics report on things like this. It would be easy to run and automate as it’s just pulling data from the Bader database. But run a report on all the things we’ve discussed in here. Cadet/staff numbers. Cadet/staff service length. How many have joined and how many have left. Reason for leaving (if captured properly). There’s loads of data that can be presented very easily with a bit of automation.
When i discovered years ago that discharging a cadet only requires the date and none of the other fields. It saved me precious seconds. Dont make me lose that now! 
I always tried and kept it accurate, it’s only two more clicks. It was almost always joined university, joined forces or stopped attending.
Surely it’s the reason they stopped attending that we really need to know?
Yes, I get that, but there’s a generic ‘low attendance/ stopped attending’ option on the drop down, which of what I meant
What other options are there? Besides potentially unfortunately “Death”?
Custodial sentence.
Moving away
Lost of interest
Work life balance
Organisational culture….
An interesting mix.
I did say this as a father of two, if mine were old they’d be enrolled at a Sqn some distance from mine just to get the missed two nights off. I think she lets me carry on for the same reason.
Problem is I think HQ look at these results and draw different conclusions.
More Cadets, with less CFAVS? WINNING - TK, probably.
That maybe the case a little
“ oh you have less CFAVs to manage? Don’t need so many paid staff then”