Perhaps it’s UK Flyball League ranks…. Got to get those 25000 points some how 
see i am looking at this and thinking… 
will there be actual Dash and Ava to meet, i.e. people in costumes…and given this weekends heatwave, I don’t fancy their chance for next week either!
The organisers have planned to put a cadet in it - they just haven’t asked/told us yet 
Presumably they are dogs (Apologies if not, but that’s what I’m seeing)?
…then why give them hands? …surely they should have paws?
1 Like
you are probably not far wrong there!
I get the recognition from my Cadets, which will do me. And I can print off my 10yr service as a CI if I want to frame it in the office 
We have a WO, FS, and three officers. One officer is down every blue moon, and one has recently transitioned into uniform and is already looking for a wing position, which would take them away from us. Additionally, our OC is down fairly regularly so that’s something.
They do a lot of the heavy lifting that the RAFAC CFAVs do E.G. Buildings and activity risk assessments, fire orders, booking of DTE and RFCA accommodation/facilities, Recces, moving of weapons and have vehicles for this, buildings defect reporting and contractor visits etc, etc
1 Like
And they are paid for doing it
1 Like
It might depend on the background of the staff…
If a sqn has ex-military staff, then there’s certainly no “illusion” about background or selling the potential benefits of the Services. I would argue that there could be a greater degree of “connecting” in some cases compared to uniformed staff that do not have an ex-military background.
For example, when the ACPS was binned for the yr after Dundee folded, it was a very bolshy CI 
who managed to get alternative flying (Silver GS) for those who lost out on their ACPS allocation - RAFAC / 2FTS weren’t going to offer up anything.
It’s very clear that your first statement is correct (see the recent statistics in the Cadet Forces Expansion thread) & that the second statement isn’t!
It’s very much horses for courses & whilst subjective, it’s probably correct to say that at least 90% of CIs are very happy with their remit / want to remain out of uniform. RAFAC would close down in very short order if anyone tried to change the status quo in that respect.
I’m not for forcing anyone into uniform (as I said at the beginning of that post), but we absolutely need a solid focus on improving conversions into uniform.
Because the opposite is also true.
While the organisation may fold without CIs (currently), it will absolutely fold if there’s no one in uniform.
A cracking example is that if someone is looking to join, it takes longer for them to go straight into uniform than it does to become a CI.
Therefore, many people choose to go the CI route so they don’t have to spend additional months waiting on the outside before they can get going. That’s unhelpful and normalises CI service when I would argue we should normalise uniformed service.
By all means, have CI as an option, but we should be trying to normalise jumping into uniform.
1 Like
Frankly, right now, I’m looking to go CI rather than commission if I stay in.
It will also fold if the organisation runs of of officers to command & run things.
Perhaps what should occur is a national “pause” on SNCO appointments with a two year focus on officer route only.
This will
-boost the uniform
-ensure leadership for the next decade or so
-allow the SnCO cadre to establish their purpose
Pausing allowing people to go SNCO, might just put people off uniform/simply delay them doing it - remember not everyone wants to be a Rupert. A pause might on the other hand allow the SNCO cadre to get back to SNCOing rather than Ruperting rather than allowing us to establish our purpose.
It is this kind of langauge you use about purpose is exactly what we need to get away from and work together rather than point at a group and ask what their point is.
100% this, I’m on my phone so can’t find my previous post on this, but we are a uniformed youth organisation.
Would we let a cadet join and not wear the uniform?
Our biggest challenge on this front is that the only differentiators I can think of for CI v Uniformed CFAV are:
- Volunteer Allowance
- Pressure to take on Command
- Drill Instructor
- M Qual
2 Likes
I’m not sure if the use of “Rupert” is deliberate to make your point about language or is your standard terminology.
I’ll assume the former (although always thought RAF officers were “Rodneys” as they “had GCEs”)
The role necessity between officers & SNCOs has got more & more blurred & with the upskilling of the cadet NCOs & the prevalence of CIs the question is “what is the purpose of having two streams of uniform”
You can argue for officers on the management & supervision requirements along with long term scope planning.
SNCOs traditionally not meant to be long term planning so it then comes down to “what value do SNCOs add” & then “what do we do to support them adding that value”
If we no longer have a purpose for a stream then it becomes harder to support it & ensure continual business justification.
But it also means we are putting volunteers into a role without direction or defined purpose which doesn’t aid the long term development of the organisation.
SNCO & WO do have have a value but it needs to be given greater definition & you are 100% right that pausing may just put people off entirely.
A new CI joins & wants to go into uniform & asks “what’s the difference between NCO route & officer”
The idea of any class divide, elitism or that you can’t go back is just the wrong message to give & based in old fashioned concepts.
We didn’t have SNCOs prior to bout 2000 - so should we revert back or repurpose that stream if volunteers?
This has been happening since before the LASER report but has been far worse since, particularly over the last few years.
1 Like
This is what I mean - the role of the SNCO was kinda created by passing all the roles & tasks that the 22 year old cadet fs & CWO use to do.
But as the organisation gotten younger the role has degraded.
What I suppose you could do is that for FS promotions, SNCOs have to have a specialist instructor qualification (so silver or gold) for a core activity (so SAI, drill, fieldcraft AT etc) which means that you start to get the distinction that officers are generalists focused on long term & SNCOs are specialists focused on the short term.
A pause would give that psychological break in culture allowing things to restart.
Not my experience at all. I was held back from going straight to WO(ATC) by several months, and entered uniform service as Sgt(ATC) essentially in a WO(ATC) type role. On the Sqns which I’ve been on the CFSs/CWOs still do what they used to and CFAV do what they’ve previously done within changes in rules etc.
The SNCO cadre specialist was meant to be part of it from the beginning and certainly was part of the expectation that I saw being encouraged with the promotion matrix once it finally arrived and HQ decided what they wanted…
2 Likes
That seems sensible.
The only drawbacks I can see are if someone is really an aviation / space / cyber person (then we have no instructor quals beyond Blue sim / Bronze cyber outside of the AGS / VGS
Or that they are actually a capable administrator and that’s not recognised by a qualification at all, though in that case I guess it could be argued they should commission?
I don’t think should make the amount of admin duties a differentiating factor between SNCO and Officer. Other than being an arbitrary distinction, you’re also likely to put people off going for commission if it’s sold as more of an admin role.
I don’t think locking promotions behind high level qualifications is the right way to go, even if the courses weren’t scarce. I would argue someone who delivers a significant amount of training at a more local level (blue/bronze at sector/wing) is adding at least as much value as someone who delivers a couple of silver/gold courses a year at region/corps level.