Just heard from a buddy in my old Wing. At least one squadron has been placed in suspension already due to lack of uniformed staff, with several more apparently on the brink.
Maybe if they didn’t put so many hurdles in the way of going into uniform they would have more staff.
The biggest hurdle for many when going for uniform is the attitude of the higher levels (especially other CFAV) that CFAV in uniform on squadrons are just pawns. I’ve really understood the need for interviews and boards, even more so now as we move into an era of everyone being civilians. The other hurdle is that people on squadrons being primed for uniform are not stupid and quickly catch on that wearing a uniform brings little being benefit. Maybe this is why people put so much effort into getting staff cadets to go into adult uniform, as they have a degree of innocence and naïveté, such that they are easy meat to hook. Ergo little will to reduce upper age to 18, with CI as the only staff option.
Being uniformed staff has to be seen as being of benefit to the person wearing it, rather than it being regarded as a necessity to allow the ATC to function (as per @Moist_Van_Lipwig’s comment ref suspending squadrons) in its quasi pretend military format.
Maybe it’s time to change the model of how we operate in line with the new civilian format.
unfortunately Dawn doesn’t act on behalf of HQAC
In the same way she could say that there are brilliant gliding opportunities
these are words - it is HQAC who perform the actions
I think it is important to differentiate between both the different levels of policy making and the different levels of delivery within the MOD and the RAFAC when it comes to the implementation of CI policy.
In terms of the responsibilities that can be exercised by a CI, the overall policy concerning the acceptance of liability will be determined, firstly, by the MOD Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff Reserves and Cadets , currently Major General Ranald Munro. That policy will then be promulgated through the single service arms to their cadet forces. It may well be that HQAC have no options to exercise and it would be a very brave (or foolhardy) CAC or COS RAFAC to move outside the parameters set in that policy.
Given the nature of a volunteer delivered organisation, how the CI policy is then implemented through regions and wings will (but shouldn’t) vary with personal prejudice far too often adding complexity and upset.
I’m afraid I cannot concur with Steve 679’s observations on CAC and an apparent lack of ultimate responsibility for the output of HQAC ( and this is not an observation on her personal commitment which in my view is second to none). As the senior officer she is responsible for all the outputs of the organisation bar none.
Back on topic, but before we do I’ve just spoken to RC(N) who has confirmed he has never said anything of the sort about CIs not having keys, and he’s checked with HQAC and there’s no problem there either.
Sorry to burst all your bubbles
He needs to tell his WingCos to wind their necks in then; one of them is definitely going to be implementing this rule early next year.
But I’m quite happy to have that bubble burst!
I think it’s very geographical - units on stations or right next to them will have loads (I was one of 4 at 2160 (Sleaford) if I remember correctly), those in towns where personnel might commute may have a couple and other units will likely have none, maybe one or two ‘occasional’ SIs (those who have some connection to the area and may attend when they’re around) or those from other services.
Maybe go and tell him yourself?
If you feel that strongly about it tell him direct. Go the VoV page and ask the question he will answer pretty quick he always does.
Couldn’t find any direct link to that which is discussed here about CI’s - can anyone assist?
Without a doubt that would be a very silly thing to specify.
While it probably has no legs, this is HQAC we’re talking about.
A link to what?
There is no story - no one has said CIs can’t have keys.
Well, they have. I know of at least one squadron that has been placed in suspension until January because there are no uniformed staff (but several CIs and registered civ com). Their OC wing has stated publicly that HQAC will be banning CIs from holding keys, and that unless a squadron has a uniformed CFAV on a parade night, then they will be closed until they do.
And, as I’ve just said, HQAC have no such plans.
I asked Gp Capt Leeming directly - he confirmed he’s never said anything of the sort. He checked with HQAC - they’ve not said anything of the sort.
Whilst that particular Wg Cmdr might be an idiot, you can’t blame HQAC for it. Find his regional commandant, ask them to investigate.
Ultimately do something more productive than whingeing on here.
I’m not really whinging, just pointing out that your post is inaccurate.
MvL, is this a Wing Commander saying my train set my rules or is there an underlying agenda to force a co-location or merger?
The latter would not be a surprise after my recent experience, diferent scenario but same aim.
Don’t know. All I know is that a squadron has been told they can’t parade due to the fact that CIs can’t hold keys. Apparently this was reinforced at a an OCs meeting, where everyone present was told that it was to be enforced nationwide.
If it is a case of “my train set, my rules”, then that Wing Co seems to be lacking the integrity to say so - choosing to blame HQAC instead!
That or there’s been a huge misunderstanding somewhere.
Integrity in my recent experience only works one way, from the bottom up.