A new version of ACP 11 (1.06) includes Annex L - Registered Civilian Committee Members which allows members of the CWC to take part in additional actives by getting a DBS and/or doing BASIC safeguarding brief depending on the activity they are doing.
For some reason this is only available as a Word Document, the PDF got withdrawn when this version was uploaded.
Activities Requiring an Enhanced DBS Clearance
- a. Running and supporting cadet canteens
b. In the absence of a female member of staff providing female cover
c. Assisting with the training syllabus at the squadron
Ah, nothing like accidental sexism! 
Iâm sure this is a good move, given that it is harder to recruit and retain staff. But I have to wonder how involved the Civ Com can get before their impartiality over spending of funds is impacted, and their ability to remain removed so as to effectively nurture cadet welfare, is impacted.
Surely someone requiring full clearance to go and do camps, etc, is better off being recruited as a CI?
Personally the more involved the CWC are means they are better able to see the problems and potential need for kit. Iâve had some right wasters on the CWC who queried and questioned every bloody request. Fortunately the sodded off when their kids left and Iâve never experienced any problems since.
from ACP011
[quote]THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A SQUADRON COMMITTEE
a. In giving support and help to the Squadron Commander and his staff by showing a keen interest in all the squadronâs activities particularly by occasional attendance at parade nights and other squadron activities. They should also take time to meet and talk to the cadets of their squadron.
[/quote]
As this is listed in the publication written for a CWC to adhere seems that it is a given that CWC members plural could, should and would attend Squadron parade nights and other activitiesâŚ
Question: Can Registered CivCom members (with the appropriate qualifications in date) participate and even have a DS role in activities such as shooting, AT etc?
I canât see anywhere that says they definitely cannot do soâŚ
That might be a grey area. Personally I canât see why not, but there would be those that say, they should become CIs then. Ignoring the fact that would mean losing CWC people who are as hard to come by as staff.
Iâm of the understanding that when theyâre performing a staff role, theyâre under the COâs juristriction therefore canât see why not.
(conversely in CWC role theyâre under the chair).
Thatâs my feeling but then people like their trainsets (particularly shooting and AT) so wondering if anyone is aware of any official policy on Registered Civ Com involved in those areas?
They canât take part in shooting. Thatâs been checked with HQAC TG5 on the basis that we struggle to get SASC to recognise CIs in Cadet Training - Ranges let alone Registered Civ Com.
ACTO 43 Para 6 specifically states Civ Com members canât do any shooting.
Clay target isnât an issue as itâs an NGB qual and they require insurance to use that qual.
the OP is asking can they act as DS - surely as a first aider this is not an issue.
they wonât be left alone with weapons so no need for a SC
they wonât need to touch anything interesting so donât need to the trained/weapons savvyâŚ
The OP didnât ask that⌠the post 2h ago did.
They also didnât specify what DS role. To me a shooting DS role would be SPO/PO/Coach/SS etc.
But I would see no issue with them being medic if they hold the quals as per CTR and have all the relevant quals for a staff member to be out and about with the masses.
The shooting requirement for all roles is a CFAV, with the exception of SPO which has rank requirements.
Given when on Registered duties a Civ Com member is to be treated as a CI, they are a CFAV⌠If they are getting qualified and delivering cadet training though they should be a CI rather than RCC
Where does it state that categorically? ACP 20 doesnât say that and what youâre saying is against what it says in ACTO 43. They are primarily Civ Com and not Primarily CI therefore canât gain shooting quals.
CTR Para 1-04 also doesnât include RCC it simply states âProperly trained Civillian Instructors from the Air Cadet Organisation are CFAVs.â
This is the problem with this new role, we have been told that those Civ Com members who have jumped through the extra hoops can be used the same as a CI but they havenât considered the shooting world which has its own seperate manuals which arenât under HQAC control.
All they really need to do is re-label them as CIâs on the committee to meet the requirements in CTR. (Since they have gone through exactly the same appointment process, AVIP, Interview, DBS).
I agree, itâs another example of a poorly thought out and documented project by HQAC.
Congratulations on jumping through all those firey hoops, hereâs a certificate and a long list of things you canât do.
Surely this failing is due to TG5 not getting their finger out and getting our 1 star to put SASC straight on things. If our 1 star canât then go up to the top and come back down.
Itâs not that simple, you canât just go and pick a fight with SASC due to the nuances of our organisation.
We do as weâre told, not the other way around and negotiate to get a balance the other way.
What needs doing is out policy being written clearly and people being put in to the correct position for the role they will be filling. IE if you want to gain qualifications and help on activities then become a CI.
You can pick a fight with SASC actually, you just need someone of high enough rank to wade in for you.
The RAF has plenty of those people, the problem is that they either werenât mobilised, or mobilised far too late - the gossip from the Army side is that TG5 and HQAC were simply uninvolved with the SASC process, and that when they were involved they sent a junior Officer who wasnât a SME and who didnât really grasp what was going on. It was, apparently, not the first time that this has happened to the great detriment of shooting in the ACOâŚ
With CIâs already signed off it shouldnât even take someone senior or an SME to make SASC see sense. âYou know our CIâs? Well we now have the same thing by a different name too, all the same processes and safeguards in place. Can we just stick them in the book as an âalso includesâ please?â
This is the story I heard from one of our old Wing Shooting Officers. Apparently we sent a Sqn Ldr (when SASC started messing around with shooting) and everyone else was at least one up from that and thought they were there to get the teas and coffees.
So we have had been stuck with an inappropriate shooting set up ever since.
Our shooting bods at wing mumble rubbish about safe systems of training, like some one from the Thought Police, to which the response is itâs so safe itâs all but killed shooting in the Wing and probably Corps. Doesnât go down well as we havenât had people in charge of shooting on wing who can think for themselves for too many years.