Morning All,
My Sqn has been approached by a potential SNCO RAF Service helper. I have never been part of the process of getting a service helper. I have a few questions:
Any help or guidance would be helpful.
Many thanks
WO Merlin
[quote=“merlin456” post=15150]Morning All,
My Sqn has been approached by a potential SNCO RAF Service helper. I have never been part of the process of getting a service helper. I have a few questions:
It’s changed fairly recently in that they used to have to get a General Application (airmen) or OC’s letter (officers) from their Parent RAF Stn to say they could do it; CRBs were also done through their Stn P Staff. It’s all done through Wg HQs now.
They need to get (or rather, you get for them) P Form 6-01, available through HQAC Controlled Documents-Forms area on SharePoint. Their RAF OC signs that and it’s staffed through your Sqn to Wg HQ. Your Wg HQ also need to initiate their CRB and they’ll have to do a BASIC too. However, their Parent RAF Stn still pays home to duty which they claim on JPA using RAF GAI 1026 as the authority; they can claim the whole return journey too.
What to expect of them? Depends what you want them to do. Techies are good for specialist stuff, engines, airframes, radio/radar etc. Of course it goes without saying that RAF Regt SNCOs are a gold mine with the weapons and fieldcraft etc skills they come with. They shouldn’t be on a ‘power trip’ as some SACs (and Cpls) can be, but just be careful that they don’t try to ‘bully’ your staff into ‘this is the way the RAF do things’, particularly as this person is an SNCO. On a similar line, don’t let them undermine your existing SNCOs and Sqn WO - I’ve seen this happen - try to use the SI to develop your people. Take their Parent Service advice by all means, but remember, you’re the ACO and young people experts, not them.
What makes them tick? Lots of things. They may want to do it to expand their Secondary Duty portfolio for their SJAR (annual appraisal), they may have a genuine reason to want to assist young people like we all do, they may be an ex-cadet who ‘wants to put something back’. But remember, you might only have them for 2-3 years maximum depending on postings etc.
What I would say is have a good talk with them beforehand and find out exactly why they are doing this and what they want out of it. They are really good value to your Sqn if you get a good, well motivated and reliable one.
[quote=“merlin456” post=15150]Morning All,
My Sqn has been approached by a potential SNCO RAF Service helper. I have never been part of the process of getting a service helper. I have a few questions:
Any help or guidance would be helpful.
Many thanks
WO Merlin[/quote]
As an SI:
None. The ACO needs to provide P Form 6-01 which they fill in, the Air Cadet squadron CO fills in and they then get signed by their line manager to say they no of no reason why the airman shouldn’t work with young people. CRB, BASIC, etc then proceeds pretty much as for any other member of staff.
We can’t claim mileage.
I generally expect to be treated as along the lines of a CI who happens to wear a uniform and can occasionally be asked questions like: ‘How did you do this when you were at Halton?’ or ‘How does your unit get around this weird bit of the drill manual/dress regs/whatever?’ Saying that, for a bit the CO of the ATC squadron, who I knew when I was a Cadet Sergeant and Cadet Flight Sergeant, seemed to expect me to be more like one of his adult SNCOs. I just politely pointed out that I wasn’t really comfortable with that, since I wasn’t even a Corporal.
What makes any one tick? I became an SI because they changed the rules and I wasn’t allowed to be a CI anymore. It also means I get taken a little bit more seriously by uniformed staff with reference to anything ‘uniformy’, rather than just completely ignored by certain types of individual.
Also, while Cygnus maximus has some wise words on SIs, I’d add that it’s important to remember that they aren’t ‘staff’ in the same way as other staff. ie: HQAC doesn’t ‘own’ them (us) so can be edgy about allowing SIs to do certain things and there are quals SIs can’t hold based on rank (thinking shooting) that are open to any other staff, which can surprise some people when they ask you to do something or go on a course and you have to explain you aren’t allowed to.
Some good points TL, especially using your SI as a ‘reference’.
[quote]
We can’t claim mileage.[/quote]
You can, well, at least Regulars can which may be why you can’t; RAF GAI 1026 says (or at least it did when I claimed HTD) - HTD is the responsibility of the Parent Stn (unless of course the Parent Stn has categorically told you that despite the GAI they’re not going to pay you!).
[quote]
HQAC doesn’t ‘own’ them (us) so can be edgy about allowing SIs to do certain things and there are quals SIs can’t hold based on rank (thinking shooting) that are open to any other staff, which can surprise some people when they ask you to do something or go on a course and you have to explain you aren’t allowed to.[/quote]
SIs should be able to do everything that ACO staff of equivalent rank do and all ACO courses (except ATF of course - no need, but possible on a ‘fill-up’ basis I think) are open to them, again on an equivalent rank basis. After all, an SI effectively ‘comes free’ as far as HQAC is concerned, they don’t pay them mileage and they don’t pay them for Camps, training weekends, or other duty days - bargain! As TL mentions, I think the issue can be when a Sqn has an SAC/Cpl SI and they expect or ask too much of them.
You can, well, at least Regulars can which may be why you can’t; RAF GAI 1026 says (or at least it did when I claimed HTD) - HTD is the responsibility of the Parent Stn (unless of course the Parent Stn has categorically told you that despite the GAI they’re not going to pay you!).[/quote]
It is paid from individual bases T&A budget, limited budget, no pay. Plus it only applies to Regular RAF SI.
This is an interesting thread.
Shame we don’t get more like this.
Can I ask a question also? If the Service Helper has no formal military qualifications in a subject; for example Fieldcraft say, but clearly has some working experience, can they take Fieldcraft lessons or even run an exercise?
I suppose the answer in practice is yes, but considering the H&S implications and the ACO’s quite correct stance on qualified personnel, what is the theoretical position?
Thanks for any help, guys.
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=15169]This is an interesting thread.
Shame we don’t get more like this.
Can I ask a question also? If the Service Helper has no formal military qualifications in a subject; for example Fieldcraft say, but clearly has some working experience, can they take Fieldcraft lessons or even run an exercise?
I suppose the answer in practice is yes, but considering the H&S implications and the ACO’s quite correct stance on qualified personnel, what is the theoretical position?
Thanks for any help, guys.[/quote]
I’ve done some Fieldcraft teaching on the grounds that 1) I’m well over 18 and 2) I’ve got an ATC recognised MOI qual (I did the AMOI course before I became a CI) and therefore meet the requirements in ACP 16.
I’ve also done the Basic Coaching Course, but can’t actually hold the qual or do any safety supervising on the range because you need to be L/Cpl minimum. Which I did say I thought would be the case before I went on it but was told: ‘I don’t see why you wouldn’t be allowed to! A CI with no previous experience can do it!’ So I really did it to sort of prove the point and get them to stop asking me about doing a range qual.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15170][quote=“Racing Stick” post=15169]This is an interesting thread.
Shame we don’t get more like this.
Can I ask a question also? If the Service Helper has no formal military qualifications in a subject; for example Fieldcraft say, but clearly has some working experience, can they take Fieldcraft lessons or even run an exercise?
I suppose the answer in practice is yes, but considering the H&S implications and the ACO’s quite correct stance on qualified personnel, what is the theoretical position?
Thanks for any help, guys.[/quote]
I’ve done some Fieldcraft teaching on the grounds that 1) I’m well over 18 and 2) I’ve got an ATC recognised MOI qual (I did the AMOI course before I became a CI) and therefore meet the requirements in ACP 16.
I’ve also done the Basic Coaching Course, but can’t actually hold the qual or do any safety supervising on the range because you need to be L/Cpl minimum. Which I did say I thought would be the case before I went on it but was told: ‘I don’t see why you wouldn’t be allowed to! A CI with no previous experience can do it!’ So I really did it to sort of prove the point and get them to stop asking me about doing a range qual.[/quote]
Fully Agree, most of the qualifications I hold are not recognised by the ACO but I have instructed at various levels. Never thought about it in much detail but ultimatly its based on the CO decision to accept the risk. I think its a safe bet to say that 9 times out of 10 the Qual or Experience the SI provides is above and beyond the majority of courses available to a CFAV.
[quote=“flago” post=15164]
It is paid from individual bases T&A budget, limited budget, no pay. Plus it only applies to Regular RAF SI.[/quote]
I know it doesn’t apply to Fish-heads, but have a look at RAF GAI 1026 if you can Flago (Dii Homepage - RAF portal - Publications - Reference - RAF GAIs).
I assume you meant that any Auggies on duty with the ACO wouldn’t get paid through their Sqn as an official ‘Training Day’ and I don’t know whether they would or not. SIs (Regulars at least) are as you know paid 24/7 so therefore wouldn’t get anything extra anyway, which is why I said they’re good value in financial terms to the ACO.
Of note, RAF GAI 1026, Para 13.
‘RAuxAF Personnel. Personnel from the RAuxAF and other regular or reserve forces may also volunteer to assist the ACO under the auspices of this GAI’.
The GAI also says:
‘RAF Personnel (and therefore I would also imagine from Para 13 RAuxAF personnel - my comment) will be considered to be on duty and may claim travel at public expense, the cost however must be borne by the individual’s Parent Station, and therefore prior approval should be sought.’
So the GAI applies equally to RAuxAF and from the excerpts above, I would suggest that provided an Auggie has advised his/her OC and got their approval, they should be able to get HTD. I’m sure some bean-counter would argue otherwise though.
There is no reason why Regular Service qualifications should NOT be accepted and used where appropriate. I’ve come across this before and I hate to say it but often it’s more a case of sour grapes and ‘you’re a Regular and we don’t really want you doing X or Y’, rather than a definite case of qualifications not being recognised. If there is any doubt, your Wg HQ should be staffing questions to HQAC.
I’d be interested to know what the courses are that aren’t acceptable Flago and whether others have had a similar experience.
Yeah I have read the GAI, it made me and our pers team laugh.
The GAI does not give a clear right to payment for anyone other than RAF Pers, with RAF its easy as HTD comes out of a huge pot and paying it for an SI does not cause too much of an issue. When it comes to Reserves, as the payment is not mandated and their post of HTD considerably smaller and thinly spread, they are often refused payment.
this is due to it saying it also apples to Personnel from the RAuxAF and other regular or reserve forces. Where this comes into effect is an assumption. It could be seen it allows RN, RNR, Army and Army Reserves to claim HTD as it says we can act under the GAI. This is not possible as it is a GAI and not a DIN.
I have gone over this many times and the only ones the GIA directly applies to and works for are RAF SI not RAuxAF.
PM inbound on the qualifications side
Got PM, thanks, will reply on there.
I’m partly surprised that the RN and Army don’t have a similar document to GAI 1026 and partly not. Something similar would help a great deal as they must have SIs doing a similar job with SCC and ACF (someone advise - Talon?).
I can see how some units get out of not giving our Auggies HTD as you’re right, it’s not a directive, but you’d think that we would adopt the ‘of one Company’ attitude and apply the spirit of the document. I wouldn’t expect the Auggues to get paid training days, but even a contribution to HTD would help, after all, more of our cadets end up in the Auggies that Regular these days and there must be some sort of recruiting offset.
As far as I know being in the army I can claim the grand total of 0 for mileage, luckily Essex Wing is relatively small so if I have to travel it’s not very far!
This statement may or may not be true but the ACO is not a recruiting tool and thus such qualification cannot be used for expenditure.
This statement may or may not be true but the ACO is not a recruiting tool and thus such qualification cannot be used for expenditure.[/quote]
Hence my comment of ‘[b]some sort [/b]of recruiting offset’.
Of course we’re not an official recruiting tool for Regulars or Auggies, but I’d be very surprised if Auggie Sqn Cdrs don’t consider the broader range of benefits that may come about as a result of working with their local ACO units.
This statement may or may not be true but the ACO is not a recruiting tool and thus such qualification cannot be used for expenditure.[/quote]
[off topic]although i can’t disagree, none of our aims are to aid recruitment into regular or reserve forces, the same could be said for the Red Arrows
by no means a recruitment tool, but the resulting PR and “role model” for the youth “i want to be a Red Arrow when i grow up” has untold recuiting potential
there are a selection of stats to quote regarding the No of ex-Cadets joining up, and how success rates change, but it is safe to say a fair proportion of ATC Cadets “join up” who might not have done has they not had time in the ATC due to the “PR” effect of seeing the RAF and “wanting to do that when i grow up”
[/off topic]
I’m not entirely sure why you would want to be an SI if you are an Auxiliary.
Why not just become a CI or even ATC NCO?
Wear the hat appropriate to what you are doing at the time, and all that…
MW
[quote=“mike whiskey” post=15229]I’m not entirely sure why you would want to be an SI if you are an Auxiliary.
Why not just become a CI or even ATC NCO?[/quote]Because it is no longer permitted to do so. (PI301, para 12 / PI401, para 4)
Thanks for the update, But what a stupid ruling! Reserves don’t support them as SIs but we won’t take them as CIs! Bonkers.
To be fair, it’s an issue of duel status.
Like I said above, as a CI I could (for example) be a SAAI or run ranges, which would potentially be seen as undermining the CoC on my unit. I’m not saying that’s right, but it makes people uncomfortable, and making the people who tell you what to do uncomfortable is never a good idea.
Also, SNCOs and CIs use the Sergeant’s Mess. As an Auggie LAC/SAC or junior NCO, you’re forbidden from going anywhere near it. So you could potentially be on the same station on alternate weekends with totally different places in the pecking order.