I’m of the understanding that when they’re performing a staff role, they’re under the CO’s juristriction therefore can’t see why not.
(conversely in CWC role they’re under the chair).
That’s 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 can’t take part in shooting. That’s 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 can’t do any shooting.
Clay target isn’t an issue as it’s 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 won’t be left alone with weapons so no need for a SC
they won’t need to touch anything interesting so don’t need to the trained/weapons savvy…
The OP didn’t ask that… the post 2h ago did.
They also didn’t 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 doesn’t say that and what you’re saying is against what it says in ACTO 43. They are primarily Civ Com and not Primarily CI therefore can’t gain shooting quals.
CTR Para 1-04 also doesn’t include RCC it simply states ‘Properly trained Civillian Instructors from the Air Cadet Organisation are CFAVs.’
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 haven’t considered the shooting world which has its own seperate manuals which aren’t under HQAC control.
All they really need to do is re-label them as CI’s on the committee to meet the requirements in CTR. (Since they have gone through exactly the same appointment process, AVIP, Interview, DBS).
I agree, it’s another example of a poorly thought out and documented project by HQAC.
Congratulations on jumping through all those firey hoops, here’s a certificate and a long list of things you can’t do.
2 Likes
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 can’t then go up to the top and come back down.
It’s not that simple, you can’t just go and pick a fight with SASC due to the nuances of our organisation.
We do as we’re 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 weren’t 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 wasn’t a SME and who didn’t 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 ACO…
1 Like
With CI’s already signed off it shouldn’t even take someone senior or an SME to make SASC see sense. “You know our CI’s? 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 “also includes” please?”
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 it’s so safe it’s all but killed shooting in the Wing and probably Corps. Doesn’t go down well as we haven’t had people in charge of shooting on wing who can think for themselves for too many years.
I know that I’m not the only person to whom this whole “registered CivCom member” thing seems utterly pointless…
They go through DBS disclosures, BPSS, they have to complete AVIP and AFA… At the end of all this they have done all the same legwork as someone becoming a CI…
In the old days it was easy - If you wanted the CivCom to help out at an event (catering for an open day; helping at a Sqn BBQ, etc) you just ensured that they were not left alone with cadets (the same as with other non-DBS visitors).
Now though, if they want to get involved they go through the same application process as every other CFAV… So why the hell are we reinventing the wheel? If someone wants to become so involved with Sqn activities as to warrant the time, resources, and expense involved in putting them through the process then why not just point in them in the direction of applying for service as a CI?
It made sense to permit us to apply for DBS for certain CivCom members in special circumstances (if for example you had a CivCom member who ran the tuck shop or something, but was otherwise not involved in the Sqn organisation). A nice option to allow limited additional contribution from CivCom members and to remove some of the supervisory requirements from the existing staff. Not applicable across the board, and judged on a case-by-case basis on it’s own merits.
But now it’s as though some muppet has pushed it even further without stopping to think “Actually, we’ve already got a route which allows people who are not Sqn Staff to work as Sqn Staff - they apply to become Sqn Staff!”
Then of course we also have this bizarre double-standard:
As CFAVs - CIs, SNCOs, WOs, and Commissioned Officers are not permitted to sit on Civilian Committees (OC Sqn excepted) - DAS IST VERBOTEN!
But a CivCom member can now become both CivCom and CFAV at the same time? 'The hell is that about?
1 Like
Well there’s a question for the next uniformed staff conference(s) you have. The question should be can all staff vote on spending money, which effectively the position with reg CWC. I know of 2 CWC who are registered and they get used as baby-sitters and mini-bus drivers. One is a lady who IMO quite frankly gets used as female cover when the female staff can’t be bothered to turn up to parades or events.
This was one CAC’s brilliant ideas to get around a problem of not being able to attract as many staff as we really need, but didn’t really think it through. This a bit like the idea I heard about of having someone like a mum, come in just to sit and do admin on Bader. Of course you got the impression this hadn’t been thought through.
One of CWC approached the CO about doing this and was asked, what could you do, that don’t do aeady? Nothing really, so don’t waste your time giving yourself more grief than you deserve.
The reason is that the RAF has stipulated that only CFAVs and cadets can be passengers on MT vehicles and that CWC members cannot.
So this whole thing is a way around that by making them CFAVs in all but name
Personally I can’t think of a single occasion when I have ever needed/wanted/wished that I could have put a CivCom member on an MT vehicle - not even under the “MT guise” of phoenix hire.
I’m sure other units will have have some examples of their own, but can it really be such a wide spread requirement for CivCom to be such an integral part of an activity and yet NOT be a CI?
Depends on the role your CWC plays. If they provide catering or other support during camps etc, then they might need to get there by MT or Phoenix transport. Pretty common here locally.
1 Like
Apologies for the ress but…
Considering Reg Civcom, can we expect Reg CFAV for those squadron’s without/poorly staffed Civcoms?