Are you sure?
The logic would be that if you are a CFAV, you’d never need to be a SI.
& how confidence that they have followed the right process? 
1 Like
How can you be both? Genuinely interested.
You can be a reserve officer, and a CFAV officer. Or you can be a reserve OR/(S)NCO, and a CFAV SNCO. Or you can be a reserve the helps out as an SI/SR in their reserve rank.
You can’t be a reserve officer and a CFAV SNCO. You also can’t be a reserve OR/(S)NCO and a CFAV officer.
If you’re a regular, you’re only option is SI/SR in your normal rank.
That’s my understanding from what is said above.
(I think OR is correct for junior ranks?)
1 Like
The NATO term is still OR, but we’ve started using enlisted aviator (EA) now. Something to do with negative associations with ‘othering’ people, I think.
Edit: for clarity, my question to @Adminvortex was specifically around being a CFAV and SI at the same time. I know a reservist has the option to become CFAV, but I would have thought this means they cease to be a SI. Unless they’re CFAV at one unit and supernumerary at another in their reservist rank as an SI?
1 Like
@steve679 So, if CI is an “appointment” it is neither an enlisted or commissioned rank. Pretty sure that’s what I wrote…
@JoeBloggs Regulars cannot be Service Helpers. There is a clear conflict of interest in Terms and Conditions of Service vs CFAV commitment. Reservists can be Service Helpers or CFAVs but not both etc.
Pretty sure I wrote that already. But, hey, I’m only in the team that issues the JSP!
@JustCallMeFlight OR in NATO is “Other Rank”. “OF” is “Officer”. But don’t take my word and 6 years at SHAPE/HQ AIRCOM for that. Enlisted means those brought in to service, rather than appointed by the Monarch. Noting that Regular WOs are, since the days of Cromwell, granted their warrant by Parliament…
@MajorDisaster I emphasised the point because I was never a CFAV. In RAF Regular service I was sqn ldr commanding a Formed Unit sqn and, so, had commensurate responsibility as a CO in Military Law. I have been an OC as a flt lt - as well as a Stn Cdr. 9F was back before the VR(T) was replaced with the CFC though. So, it really wouldn’t make any difference now - which is probably a good thing. My current fg off boss is an OiC according to RAFAC!
Who knows?
I might need to go and re-read your posts but I’m using the terms interchangeably. My understanding is SI is just the new term for SH. Per ACP 20:
The RAF policy whereby Regular and Reserve RAF personnel are permitted to assist RAF Air Cadet (RAFAC) units with training programmes, affiliation visits, competitions, sports events and camps is published in Reference A. These individuals are known as “Service Instructors” (SIs) (previously “Service Helpers”)
I’ve never seen a proper, written delinitation between SI and SH - the informal, working version was that SI was the service member who was formally part of the Sqn, was down regularly, maybe did a specific role on the Sqn, and a SH was either an ex-cadet, now SM, who came along to help for a random weekend, or a random SM who helps out on an irregular basis, possibly just once.
No worries. I am not using the terms interchangeably though.
Service Helper is a Joint Service doctrine and policy term.
Service Instructor is single Service - as in RAF - term.
The only link I have found between the 2 is the same one you found in ACP 20, viz:
These individuals are known as “Service Instructors” (SIs) (previously “Service Helpers”).
For me, this, taken literally, means that a Service Instructor and a Service Helper are not the same thing.
Would be delighted to learn more about either role and particularly excited to receive any new - to this thread - policy references covering them.
1 Like
Well not really.
They very much are the same thing, it’s just that the different services call them something different.
A shoe in English and a shoe in French is still a shoe.
Arguably, the RAFAC should call them Service Helpers on the basis that this is what joint doctrine says, no?
The RAFAC has presumably tweaked it to standardise with “Civilian Instructor”.
1 Like
…and upon that point is where we disagree.
The Services - Royal Navy, Army and RAF - are collectively governed by Joint Service Policy.
Each individual Service, singular, issues amplifying instructions to address the peculiarities of its circumstances.
The RAF - in the form of RAFAC - has chosen not to have Service Helpers, the single Service doctrine, and has, instead, replaced them with Service Instructors.
I know not why.
If the 2 are the same the ACP 20 terminology should not have been “replaced”.
Surely this is semantics. They are exactly the same, just a different name.
they may help at cadet units as ‘Service Helpers’ or similar. - JSP 814
Surely the ‘or similar’ is just a catch all so the terms can be a bit loose.
If they are different, I’d ask what the difference is, other than name, and where those difference are defined.
2 Likes
So, rivetting conversations about JSP’s Vs ACP’s aside, is there any actual difference in the definitions of the one/two roles, according to the two publications?
Are there any definitions given at all?
2 Likes
“Surely this is semantics. They are exactly the same, just a different name.”
Remembering that Reservists on duty are, unlike CFAVs, subject to Military Law and, as my tutors at Cranwell always used to say…
Tell that to the Board of Inquiry.
Such are the assumptions upon which lives are broken apart. Have Presided over 2 Boards and I can assure you that particular detail could be examined in microcosm ie upon what authority was the “Service Instructor” performing their duty - certainly not the JSP.
But wether they are called service helper or service inductor doesn’t change that? I’m genuinely confused now how these are different, other than in name.
We could decide to change the name of Civilian Instructor to Civilian Helper. CI to CH. Keep everything the same policy wise, just change the name. That wouldn’t change their role nor the scope of their responsibilities. Just a name change. That’s my understanding of SI vs SH
2 Likes
@JoeBloggs
It is that very confusion that lead me down this long path. Why was the name of the role changed by the RAF? I was a Service Helper at 9F up to 2010 - I checked my paperwork.
More to the point, I am well-qualified, decorated and hold senior rank. If I can’t work this out, what chance does a keen, young and much more useful junior enlisted stand of knowing what they are letting themselves in for?
I owe it to those less fortunate than me to make sure they don’t get shafted for trying to do a good thing.
1 Like