OC Survey on SharePoint - Keep Staff Cadets or Not

I’d agree with the last couple of posts - our 18+ cadets are a vital part of the Sqn, they act (broadly) as a training support group more than as leaders _per see - they’ll help with instruction and practice, help with logistics for activities and are almost always the majority of our advance and rear parties when we go away. They will man checkpoints or wandering support on hillwalks/DofE, and act as enemy or observers on FT exercises.

Whether they need to be cadets is another matter - the Guide Association for example has a category of staff called ‘occasional helper’, someone with an interest and skills the SA needs, but who has neither the time or inclination to be a more involved member of staff - but they do need to be kept on board.

Call them what you like, but civilians, 18-20(or older perhaps?), ex-cadets with DBS, MoI and CO’s sign-off. Then full CI or Uniform at 20.

2 Likes

If this happens, ACPS/ ACPNS will stop on the Tutor. At present the noise vibration unit will not accept exposure to noise/vibration on scholarships to under 18 year olds. They have to be 18 to be fitted with CEPs to comply with the risk assessment.

I’m not an ATC Sqn OC so could somebody out there raise this as a concern as I’m guessing nobody at HQ RAFAC has thought of this impact?

1 Like

Which cost more the ones at Tayside or those at an AEF?

I don’t know, but cost isn’t the issue. It’ll mean there’ll be fewer scholarship opportunities.

Can somebody post or PM me the URL for the survey please, I can only see the results.
I am a sqn cdr

What would courses like flying scholarships and JLs
Do then given (I maybe wrong) you need to be 18 to attend

Yes can someone post the link please, when sharepoint is up and running again :joy:

I have spoken to a few cadets who fall into this age bracket and many are not happy. They like the extra responsibility but feet that the RAFAC are getting the extra staff on the cheap. Their main gripe is that the RAFAC are happy for them to take a groups of cadet to AEF but not pay the 25p per mile for doing it or be a member of staff on a weekend camp but in the down time on a Saturday evening not being allowed a pint because cadets are not allowed to drink. I believe they have a point. At 18 the staff cadets do the same safeguarding training as adults need DBS FA to lead activities but we do not even allow then to claim travel. I do think they have a point.

There has been a lot written above of acting this and LAC that but I believe it is complicating the matter, KISS.
This is my master plan you may not like it but that is up to you.
First I would like to say that the RAFAC benefits from the cadets being that little bit older. We would loose something if they were forced to leave at 18. I also agree that at 18 some (not all) need to grow up a little. BUT if cadets are forced to leave at 18 they should be allowed to become staff at 18, none of this LAC or CI for 2 years.
My master plan is at 18 all cadets will become PIs, Potential Instructors for 2 years. they would be DBS, AVIP FA, SC if needed and have the same limited responsibility as the staff cadets but not the full responsibility of full staff. They would not be paid but would be able to claim allowances like travel. They would be able to stay in the Sqts mess under the guidance of full staff. During the two years they could then decide on Commission, SNCO of CI. Also during the two years the process of becoming uniformed staff will be undertaken so wing boards, OASC etc and this will be completed and when they turn 20, they will be fully fledged adult staff. Furthermore during this time they could be sent on courses that will assist with them becoming staff. MOI, H and S range mgt, adv trg fields craft and still do the things like JIs and flying scholarships can be under taken now.

By the time they are 20 they will have had two years to decide what will be their future if any in the corps will be, have had a taste of leadership and responsibility but with a safety net of older experienced staff guiding them. The two years will also stop the full cut off of turning 18 and having a friendship group who are slightly younger or older than them or a girl/boyfriend who is not exactly the same age.

Now you can all shoot me down as preposterous.

5 Likes

Can’t say I do. There may well be some who are a little too excited by the concept of a rank, etc, but no one is going to give that sort of commitment just for some blue-grey polyester.

1 Like

Then I wish I was in your position
I can think of several in my wing and more in the region

I don’t disagree, but why not make PI the route in for all staff and stop appointing CI’s? All new staff do 2 years as a PI and come out the other side as a Sgt or a Plt Off?

1 Like

Seconded.

I can think of a handful of names who were CIs for many years and jumped at the chance when the Sgt rank came along.

they got all the benefits of uniform while hiding in the shadow of the "Old style" (direct entry) WO that was on Squadron.

I also know of CIs who wanted more recognition and or feeling of authority and are now Sgts or Plt Offs (typically the former)

These were CIs who often have no interest in getting “hands on” with Cadets – be that teaching, leading, mentoring or supervising events. These are Staff who are useful to make up the numbers on weekend events and often effective in the office of a Parade night.

I know of CIs who are now Sgts who do exactly the same now as they did before – I don’t want to go down the route of saying “its not a SNCOs job to do paperwork” but if you wear the uniform and rank, act accordingly, be that SNCO or Officer.

Likewise a Plt Off shouldn’t just hid in the office and administer paperwork and be the useful second Staff on a weekend event but be happy to get out in front of the Cadets, teach, instruct or lead them on events

1 because not all CIs want to go into uniform

2 – not all CIs can go into uniform, either due to age (they were uniformed members and now “retired” from a uniform role, but still get involved usefully as a CI) or due to personal circumstance – shift workers or high family commitment who cannot commit to the full “12 hours” expectation

2 Likes
  1. It would effect current CI’s just don’t appoint anymore.

  2. They can become registered Civilian Committee members which is closer to being what a CI is supposed to be than the current CI model.

[off topic]

which is what exactly???

if by that you mean what the role was intended for 70 years ago - then yes, but it [the role] has moved with the times

[/off topic]

1 Like

I would split it - have direct-entry PIs (or make life easy and just call them ACs) for anyone wanting to go into uniform, and make CI a ‘for-life’ position where there is no expectation to go into uniform (although of course they would still have the option).

I’ve always felt that the current system slightly ‘cheapens’ the whole CI concept.

As a CO I have not seen this survey, but I will read everyone’s comments before I fill it in…hows that?

4 Likes

I was under the impression that this wasnt a proposal but a waiting to cross the t’s and dot i’s

Not what the survey says. It says it’s an option that’s being looked at.

I get on with all our cadets, but I’m a CI who has zero teaching experience. So I’m the CI who makes the numbers up on the weekend when I’m needed and I keep the Sqn sparkling haha

I have no urge to want to go into uniform and more than happy only needing to wear shirt and tie at the handful of parades we go to. I don’t need the stress that comes with the itchy jumper :joy:

1 Like