I have yet to read anywhere that the ATC is a vehicle for the provision of cheap labour for any event; I have always believed in what the website claims - that it provides activities which offer challenge, excitement and adventure. There is also the bit about air minded young people…. .
Two things have changed since 1941;a) the RAFAC is not a recruiting platform for the RAF (website refers to times of war) and b) the RAF has shrunk to such an extent that opportunities to get up close and personal with an aircraft are now largely confined to Museums.
And excuse me, but other than the provision of facilities and uniform being funded by the Taxpayer, it is very clear that everything else comes from donors - in most instances parental subscriptions
Chapter one of ACP11 clearly states the purpose and objectives of the organisation which derive from the Royal Warrant, but nothing about fundraising.
Unlike the MSSC, the RAFAC does not get an MOD Grant in Aid, and therefore what is not covered by central funding, has to be met by the Civilian Committee, who’s purpose is to raise, manage and apply those funds to meet the requirements of the Royal Warrant.
One cannot count Wings as being a significant part of this process as they just seem to soak up some of Squadron funds, but do not openly make it known how they spend the money - they then deem themselves unaccountable to the original donors. There is one case of a Wing having a quantity of PCs donated by a major IT provider, and Squadron Committees were then expected to part with money if they wanted one of these machines.
I agree that the more money you have, the more can be achieved, and that is then down the availability of sufficient CFAVs; it is somewhat sad when one hears about thousands of pounds being raised through grants etc and being used in line with the application to Awards for All, only to find that the ATC is so appalingly bad at man management, that there is an exodus of staff such that all the kit provided for the benefit of Cadets, now sits unused. If this was tax payers funding igt wouold be subject to investigation, but not with the ACO where no-one is held accountable.
Incubus is correct, in his reference to RAFA, the purpose and intent has been identified, but as I said HQAC has yet to appreciate that they need Fundraising guidelines.
And in response to those who want me to quote specifics, I think that this is hardly the forum -
this FOI dates from 2011 and shows that the ACMB has been in existence since 2011, that it is monitoring social media, making it much easier to control and project a positive image.