That’s not what I am saying.
CI blogs spends 4hrs on a Saturday clearing up & tiding stores
Fg Off jones has a 2hr meeting every other week with the local council & RBL
Sgt smith only parades one night a week due to child care but on Thursdays does 3hours remotely with admin & media prepping lesson plans.
Yes it’s time sheets, yes it’s clocking in & out but it’s not recorded anywhere so it is if it didn’t happen.
It needs logging somewhere but it’s not done anywhere.
Very true - just plonked in about 45 mins - downloaded / added 5 RSDs, etc, to SMS + auth requirements…with 2 Bader drop-outs! 
And 'phone calls, etc…
For most (all?) events, I guess that travel time isn’t counted either. What might only show as a XX hour activity becomes XX + YY travel time; in some cases, the overall duration can tot up quite quickly.
I’ve always thought a time and motion study of how volunteers actually volunteer and how much time is used doing cadet stuff without even thinking about it.
Newer IT systems and always on devices often mean things get processed without even thinking about it.
Just don’t share the results with our employers
They sent out a role work study a while back. IIRC I couldn’t get the file/link to open.
Purely from SMS interaction, emails sent to Wg, downloads from the Trg Hub for lesson prep, etc, etc, it should be pretty obvious that most CFAVs spend a fair chunk of time on RAFAC activities outside of parade nights or designated SMS activities.
Didn’t someone in the VSDT say that people at HQ/Region complained that the Air Cadets logo was too prevalent/Obvious on the “new look” of Bader/SMS because it was too obvious to employers/line managers that they were working on cadet work instead of work work.
My bigger concern with ACP19 as it stands is - and correct me if I’m wrong - but on a local level it’s making sweeping changes to the way a squadron runs.
Apparently you can only have a Warrant Officer if you have over 81 cadets (or “exceptional” RC approval) and “Only in exceptional circumstances, and only if approved by Regional Commandant HQ RAFAC (SO2 Personnel), can a CI fill an established uniformed postion.”
I’m not sure that’s practical, right? A squadron has 4 established posts (OC, Adj, Trg, SNCO) but I doubt all squadrons have 4+ uniformed staff. Are we going to push those CIs towards the blue suit or are going to require officers and SNCOs to double/triple job to make up the numbers?
Some don’t even have 4 staff, let alone uniformed.
These people are proper quality… 
Through my cadet and then SI and CI career, lasting some 35 years (good god…) I’ve been on, or attached to, 9 Sqn’s in 4(?) regions. One of those Sqn’s had 4 uniformed members of staff. Two of them had four members of staff in total.
I, for one, am glad that the people who command and organise the ACO have such an understanding of the staffing picture…
Let them dream and move their counters round the boards…
…whilst we get on with managing reality 
This was new last year so I don’t think we’ll change this, and I think part of it is yes to push towards going into uniform.
Making VA an endangered species is a novel way to persuading CI’s to go into uniform.
‘so if I stay as a CI I don’t have to wear silly clothes, I get paid the same as you and I can’t get the Adj job foisted on me? Cool…’
I wonder how that’s going to work out…
I would say 50% of the Squadrons I have been on a CI has been the Adj! (they may well have later moved into a Commissioned role, but I know of several Adjs who are successfully conducted by CIs
These are roles rather than posts & only the OC needs to uniformed.
Strictly speaking SNCO is neither a role or a post with the role that needs filling being supply.
The establishment posts refers to how many uniformed staff a unit is permitted to have so that you don’t have one unit with just an OC & a load of CIs and another unit with all uniformed staff & no CIs.
It’s mainly used for home to duty calculations & budgets rather than anything more substantive.
At the rate HQAC are going, their actions are causing more staff to either leave or drop back to being a CI, I feel that percentage is only going to increase. RHQ are about to increase their own workload with applications for exceptional circumstances!!!
The table isn’t formatted particularly well & I remember it being there many years ago so I don’t think it’s a recent change.
This phrase mainly applies to CIs acting as OC sqns (the far left of the column where it references the rank for OC Sqn).
I have heard that have been a number of sqns being commanded by CIs but it’s required region clearance & the CI is expected to commission in the following 18months or so.
Had heard a rumour this is being applied to having sqns commanded by WOs & SNCOs with said person then expected to commission.
Interesting to see what the fail point is - let’s say 123 Sqn has an OC shaped hole, and there are no Officers available or willing: if FS Blogs, or CI Jones say ‘yes, I’m prepared to be OC for 2 years, but I’m not interested in commissioning’, will they fudge their own rule, or prefer the unit to close?
Setting themselves up for a fail in view - have the secret aspiration by all means, but don’t let it get in the way of a 90% solution rather than a 0% solution…
It’s not a new thing, OC’s have to be signed off by Regional Commandants and always have been.
18 months gives you plenty of time to find someone else if they don’t play the game.