If he’s already eyeing up the next job Is this what the organisation needs? It would have been better not to mention this or seeing his time as CAC to enjoy life, as he hadn’t been able to do this while in the RAF proper.
The one thing going for him his is background and most of all not an adminner although reading between the lines there would be a lot of admin in his job. @steve679 I did clock his comment about admin but you know what we’ve been hearing all the guff about admin reductions for too long and only seen it increase. So when this reduction happens, fine, but holding ones breath is not to be recommended. I was chatting to one of the maintenance blokes at work and he’s heard the HSE have come up with lot of new checks based around the virus. From what he said, it shouldn’t affect something like the Air Cadets, but you never know.
I quite liked the mention of involvement with youngsters from the local community in terms of ”STEM”. I sensed the kids were brought on the station with all the space, skilled people, equipment and no doubt access to materials as well. How would this translate to 123 Anywhere sqn in a big shed? How would the kit and materials be funded, to make it work properly this would need to be supplied centrally on demand and with at the very least some form of decent discount scheme with “High Street” suppliers.
I like the idea of STEM but the way we do it doesn’t sit well with me. One of the things I’ve seen doing project work is that kids today do not have even the most basic DIY types skills and look at tools as if they are going to be maimed by them. By the time I joined the ATC at 13 like the majority of us, I’d made things out of wood, metal and plastics, using a variety of techniques and tools and come up with a sketch or a technical drawing, as TD was part of our wood / metalwork lessons. On top of this maintaining your pushbike meant getting dirty and learning as you did things. Our 3 kids can do a lot of basic DIY stuff and know their way around a toolbox. Because like it or not dad made them help him. If the cadet STEM was focussed on this sort of thing it would be a real teaching skills useful in life, as schools don’t do very much if any basic wood/metal work. So if we took one step back and have the cadets able to use basic tools and use these to do basic things, then they can move onto some more involved things with confidence in using the tools, if nothing else. One of our former CWC got a number of ‘planks’ (I didn’t ask) and we had cadets making bird boxes and bug ‘hotels’, they thoroughly enjoyed it. A few cuts and bruises, but they learned a few things and came up with their own ideas as it went along. Whether or not this approach sits within the scope of what people think STEM is, is another thing.
It was a concern that he mentioned drill twice in what we could / can do. Is this how the RAF senior management see us? Because much of their experience of Air Cadets is seeing then on stations marching around? If so all it says about the Air Cadets is perpetual basic recruit training and surely we are or should be seen as more than that.
I did chuckle at his comment about sport in the Air Cadets being important as Air Cadets are drawn from the non-sporty schoolkids. What does that say about the majority kids we have and are looking to get and the picture of Air Cadets it portrays to the outside world. If we appealed to non-sporty schoolkids we should have 300000 cadets and probably half as many staff, given how many people say they dislike / don’t do sport.
We’ve discussed this via PM and the ACF fatality wasn’t actually an AT one. A few incidents causing injuries on AT, but so far as I’m aware, no fatalities.
I suppose one of the unfortunate natures of aviation is that any serious incident you are dicing with death.
A very good friend of mine had an engine failure on take off, the deciding factor between survive or die was purely luck. He lucked out that day and was ok.
He just happened to have a clear space in front he could squeak the aircraft into. It could have been a forest in front of him if taking off from his home field…
All we can do is manage the risk. The CAA does this very comprehensively.
It’s a shame the RAFAC can’t agree this national standard that is acceptable to apply to everyone else to be acceptable to them. As if the RAFAC knows better, given the recent controversies on Maintenance etc.
I do feel like we are working our way back from rock bottom, give it a while longer and hopefully we’ll see lots of progress that there is enough AEF and VGS for non-service flying to become a moot point.
The org has suffered a lot of setbacks over the past few years.
But
We are still here
And
Progress has been made in areas like cadet portal etc.
Just wish the people at the gardeners cottage would get their priorities right.
80th anniversary = bottom of the list.
Getting air back in air cadet is the top.
With any luck the new Comdt will be able to persuade/influence/talk sense into AOC22 Gp (who the responsibility lies with I think?) and there will be a semi-decent solution.
if the RAFAC is responsible for AEF - then poor show on them, hardly leading by their own example
if the RAFAC isn’t responsible for AEF - were the same checks made on the AEF as they are suggesting they need to for BGA sites? (i suspect not - we don’t need to audit our own team)
at the end of the day RAFAC is accountable for the activities it is providing be that VGS, the RAF owned AEF or the BGA sites…
you’re right to say the RAFAC isn’t solely responsible for AEFs, and the responsibility is passed on to OC AEF but RAFAC is still accountable - someone in the RAFAC is still signing off the activity in the same way they do if we use external AT provider…
so if the RAFAC is still accountable for what goes on be that AEF or external AT, why can’t they do the same with the BGA (or indeed a flying club) without the fear of senior officer losing a pension, or the belief that the CAA and/or BGA checks and oversight are not diligent enough??
the longer it doesn’t happen, the more i’m convinced it is about losing face that the RAF, the nations flying “club”, can’t provide the most basic of flying opportunity
The only one that I know of was a group of cadets from 2 Welsh were on a DofE Exped and were involved in a RTA while walking on a road. This was in the 1990s. Don’t Know of any others.
A better comparison than AT would be travel. The RAFAC has recently tried to remove its liability for sqn vehicles and transport. I sincerely doubt they audit Phoenix/Clarity/whatever they are called these days to anywhere near the same level as they want to with private flying, and yet I’ll wager good money on there being more accidents with that than we’ve had flying at any point.
It cannot be a risk thing, it has to simply be that someone, somewhere, does not like the idea of a civilian contractor providing for our cadets at a greater efficiency, safety and capacity than will ever be possible within the organisation, because it embarrasses them.
It is a complete shambles, a waste of money, time and effort and would be an easy and quick way to giving us a USP again. It eases pressure on the internal AEF/VGS if we aren’t all scrabbling for the same 4 places and actually allows the vast majority of cadets to access what they join us for: Air experience. Not a stupid PC, not sitting round in a cold caravan for hours, not travelling 6 hours for it to be rained off.
This is one of the biggest failures of our previous commandant and then OC2FTS, and it really makes me mad.
This is the problem. But I don’t think it’s as simple as embarrassment.
The RAF has been losing aircraft, stations and personnel at an alarming rate over the last 30 years, since the first SDR, there was a reprieve with the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and Balkans, but the contraction continued. So it needs to hang to whatever it can as tenuously as possible, like air cadet experience flying.
So to lose cadet experience flying to local clubs, potentially delivering like the RAF can’t, would be a problem. So put up any sort of barriers or arguments, and just tell HQAC that’s the end of it, it doesn’t have to be justified as they are not going to query or question it, as they are all part of the club and just toe the party line.
For some it would be more than their job’s are worth to make it easy or it could be their job, gone.
Just for clarification Steve679 you are quite right; the RAFAC have a responsibility to make sure that with all cadet activities have a risk level that is as low As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). However, I was just putting your comments ref the AEFs in a historical context. There were problems in the RAF engineering system and these were highlighted by the Haddon-Cave Review following the Nimrod loss in 2006: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nimrod-review
Bottom line; the RAF system of quality assurance had been destroyed by years of cuts and poorly monitored contracting out. As a result the Military Aviation Authority (MAA)was set up in 2010. The MAA now oversees the engineering/safety activity for all military aviation independent of the chain of command. It could be argued that it was this reset that led to the eventual grounding of the RAFAC gliding fleet in 2014. Whatever we think of the follow-on management decisions this was a safety led decision for flying under the direct control of the RAFAC.
The MAA are now ultimately accountable for safety within the AEFs, it is up to the RAFAC organisation to determine whether they are comfortable with that - no one can order cadets to go flying!!
In terms of the BGA/CAA checks I’m afraid I don’t know enough about their systems (or their implementation) to comment.
I’m not convinced the delays in the RAFAC offering more flying experiences is anything to do with a loss of face BUT the delays will undoubtedly negatively impact on the organisation. How much, only time will tell.
If anyone involved cared in the slightest about loss of face, this would have been sorted. As they are untouchable and it’s only Air Cadets so no one’s bothered. Any business experiencing problems with one of its products or services, would be all over it and sorted, when it happens, not leave it for 7 years and or do something to prevent people accessing other similar products.
The negative impact has been seen for some time. When it became apparent that gliding had gone to the dogs our older cadets who’d been expecting to be in line for a scholarship did a smart right, as at the same time powered flying was off the menu for us. Then as we did each intake the prospective cadets were told by the current cadets we do this and that, but haven’t been flying or for x which got longer. We bigged up the fly days that materialised a few years ago, but as they didn’t become a regular event, they weren’t a selling point in lieu of other flying.
When you speak to people and if they ask about the Air Cadets and they mention flying and you say they don’t it, at the very least gets a quizzical look. So reputationally the damage has been done. With a solid reintroduction of twin seat flying after a couple of years, we could actually say Air Cadets fly and use it legitimately in recruitment material, as at the moment it is a bit of a postcode lottery. We may do all these other things, but Air Cadets without flying as a credible activity is not really Air Cadets.
I don’t think it really does the RAF any favours that it can’t sort something like flying out. I would lay the blame at the RAF’s door all day long, as HQAC are toothless wrt this sort of thing.
Could you imagine say taking child to say join a football team and being told we do all the theory, game plans, play on FIFA and a few other things, but don’t play actual football matches, except for a bit of a kick around once in a blue moon.
The ‘Options For Change’ Defence Review slash and burn was 1990 - 6 months later we were in a shooting war (I was there).
Then came Somalia, Bosnia (I was there).
Then we had the ‘Front Line First’ Defence Review slash and burn in 1994.
Then came Kosovo (I was there).
Then we had 2 unfunded wars (Afghanistan and Iraq 2) resulting in yet another slash and burn Defence Review in 2010.
Hopefully the new CAC, being an Engineer (and not a bloody Scribbly), will have more sympatique towards ‘Ops’.
Dawn never impressed me - I first met her at an Xmas Draw just prior to deploying on Op GRANBY - at that time she was a Sqn Ldr PSO, her husband a Flt Lt OC GD Flt (and a personal friend). Everything I’ve seen since has been merely glossy brochures, and photo’ opportunities ( Commandant’s Vision yeah right!). Don’t even get me started on the removal of the VR Commission and the rebranding as RAFAC. An utter failure in Functional Leadership!
Every single time it has been ‘Style over Substance’ and utterly shameful.