I remember the change happening, it was a number of years ago now, but I think it was to remove a stigmatism that Service Helpers could not instruct, and to better label them in relation to what they do offer the RAFAC.
Conversely the ACF have Civilian Assistants, prior to becoming a Probationary Instructor (Uniformed), and I think differently to our Civilian Instructors those that adopt and stay in this place support unit admin and don’t teach or lead activities.
That’s the reason I was given too. I remembering having a conversation about this change from SH to SI with a Service Instructor around 2006/2007 - so the term was already in use back then. HOWEVER, paperwork - as ever - takes a while to catchup!
So you hold 2 commissions?
I thought this was a no no?
“Service Helpers could not instruct” - and where did that notion come from? As a Service Instructor and CO at 9F my entire adult staff was myself, one early-20s CI and one Flight Sergeant Instructor Cadet. I was also what is now called a DofE Expedition Supervisor at Bronze and Silver.
So, are you saying that the hundreds of hours of preparation and delivery of training that I put in as a Service Helper were something other than “instructing”? I think not.
If you don’t understand my wider concerns about the topic of the thread, I’d suggest re-reading the Coroner’s Report in to the death of 16-year old Benjamin (Ben) David Leonard who died on 26 Aug 18. It is a tragically sad example of what happens when there is ambiguity about which adult is responsible for the youngsters placed in their care.
@Paracetamol
@OC.1324
A Reserve Forces commission and a Cadet Forces Commission (CFC) are not the same thing and, yes, you can hold both. However, holding a CFC would make you a CFAV, so, according to the RAF, you could not then be a Service Instructor at the same time.
Regulars cannot be CFAVs.
That was the explanation as I recall it when the title changed, certainly wasn’t the case for the SAC we had on our unit when I was a Cadet SNCO
I do.
There has since been discussion about whether I ever needed to follow this particular route, but I was very keen to step-up and support my childhood unit, so how exactly I was to do that wasn’t something I was particularly bothered about.
I just need to remember to swap my rank slides over if I want to avoid a fine!
“Hypothetical” for you…
If I’m on duty for my annual continuous service and I wish to visit the ATC unit that is on the station, is there a subtly to be concerned about if I’m on duty as a reservist and therefore can’t switch my rank slide over for a visit?
My gut says ‘no’, but I confess I’m seeing a lot of potential for confusion if this detail matters as much as you suggest.
Offer stands. Very happy to support where I can. Just ping me an email (my username @rafac…)
…and your CFAV rank slides have “RAF Air Cadets” emblazoned on them just to help you out 
You’re too generous with your credit… 
I’m a nice helpful guy until people push my buttons - then I revert to what family and friends call my “cadet warrant officer mode” 
Dude. I’m a messenger; not the author!!! I don’t doubt the validity of either your helpfulness; nor instruction. This was very much the message we were given as to the change in terminology and nomenclature.
There was definitely something out in the past that outlined what a Service Helper could do and it didn’t include instructing. It covered things like run stores and help with admin. Now, whether that was from HQAC or a local rule I don’t know because Mr Emz at the time, would come back to the Sqn and help with whatever was needed, if that was teaching Principles of Flight or sorting out the mess of stores, then he’d just do it, likewise he’d be out helping on a DofE expedition or stood on the range issuing ammunition.
The name then changed to ‘Service Instructor’ which as others have already said, was to reflect what they were actually doing on Sqns - or at least that was what we were told.
**Currently looking at the box of old ATC paperwork wondering if I delve in it, is the ‘what a service helper can do’ paperwork in there. If I get some free time I’ll have a look, keep meaning to go through it so this seems like a good as any reason
It would be incredibly useful to see that past documentation to understand why the role changed.
I learnt of my appointment as CO 9F when I landed in the UK after an overseas shout where I couldn’t use my mobile. What I was told was that it had to be personally approved by the Commandant.
Times now are, rightfully in my opinion, very different and Safeguarding has to be a top priority. However and my personal opinion again, where there is SQEP CFAV cover, Service Instructors that do not meet the RAFAC Mandated Training standards should be individually risk assessed rather than a catch-all policy applied without any specific consideration. Whilst that Risk Assessment is a bureaucratic overhead, the billy bonus is that it should unlock some fabulous extra resource. Basically, a win-win for cadets and CFAVs alike. Stress again - this is just personal opinion.
Not sure I understand? SI’s are invariably used to provide specialist input into trg they are already qualified to do, so can’t think of when they would be doing anything they didn’t have the appropriate qualifications or mandatory trg for. Any trg deficiencies would be highlighted in the SMS approval process in any case for RtL activity, so not convinced there is any need for an individual RA?
I was never a civilian assistant and went to PI (but wearing sgt rank). I only ever encountered one CA in my four years with the ACF and I was told it was because he’d stayed at the same unit where he was a cadet (this was in rural Wales so there wasn’t a viable alternative for him) whereas I’d changed location and service (having been an ATC cadet). My wearing sgt rank was just a concession made for convenience (I was a cdt sgt and this was in the days when ranks were sewn on rather than on epaulette slides).
I assume we’re talking about a port fine here and not anything more serious?
There’s another type?
RAF Reserves have RAF Mandated Training. CFAVs have RAFAC Mandated Training.
Some RAF Mandated Training is on the Defence Learning Environment (DLE). Some RAFAC Mandated Training is on BADER.
Some common-to-both courses are on both DLE and BADER. Climatic and Safeguarding Level 1 are 2 examples. But courses completed on DLE do not auto populate and have to be recorded manually on BADER and, thus, do not, yet, auto report via BADER.
Some RAFAC Mandated Training also has RAF Mandated Training equivalence eg First Aid. So an SI can present JPA Competencies to demonstrate compliance.
This is where I started looking at this and my aim is to try to map the 2 sets of Mandated Training so SIs do not have to do the same course twice and to also address the BADER auto reporting.
Does that make sense?
Sir, that would incredibly helpful!
Please can I ask, if mapping anything across from IRT Mod. 1 (such as first aid), that consideration is given to the fact that — depending on TORs, profession, readiness, etc. — some of us get a 2-year competency for Mod. 1 rather than competing it annually.