Should CIs be an option for New Staff

Adult Staff Execs
201

As you know, you’re expected to learn uniform and drill before you attend. So that doesn’t work does it? For OIC I had a uniform inspection - no teaching of how to wear it, and indeed we had to help out the CCF and VGS officers who in some cases had received it the week prior to attending. No staff help there.

I cannot remember what drill I “learnt” on the course, maybe as an ex cadet I had less to pick up but I don’t think much time was given to actually learning it. Making sure you weren’t an idiot and could march was important but there was no actual teaching that I remember. Even the squadron commanders’ course only made me practice how to call an eyes right/eyes front repetitively.

Service environment is tangible at best - certainly there wasn’t really anything that was of use and when it was useful it was delivered after I needed it - learning mess rules and customs needs to be delivered before you actually stay in a mess, and so even doing it on Monday morning is too late because you’ve spent the night there by that point.

I can’t remember which “ATC regulations” I learnt on the course. This was some years ago so maybe I did, but I cannot remember them and as an ex cdt and CI maybe I already had a good working knowledge of them?

As an officer we don’t get taught Method of Instruction. We got to deliver a presentation and arguably this was an important and relevant part of the course, so this could stay. But this could also be delivered locally.

The only other bits I remember are being forced to do SMEAC over and over again and then using the hangar to test this. Obviously this will have changed and the hangar exercises are done at OASC prior to this now, but certainly there was nothing there (other than the camaraderie with course mates) that made me think it was useful or vital to give up a week’s leave for.

So no, I wasn’t trying to score cheap points of “be droll”.

5 Likes
202

Of course it works. I didn’t say that the white tapes are useful to show those who haven’t been to Cranwell… I said that they highlight who is still not fully trained.
Cranwell is supposed to be the final step in initial training and that’s when the tapes come off - having completed the full course and the person should be ready to go.

It doesn’t matter at which stage or at which location the necessary items are covered - white tapes designate “under training”.

203

You seem to be missing my point. The white tapes only work if, once you remove them, you have had the training to make you “fully trained”.

If the training itself is not useful or up to scratch neither is wearing the tapes. You might as well not bother because there is no discernible difference between someone prior to and post attending the course.

I’m not disagreeing that there should be some way of identifying people who have and have not been deemed fully trained, I’m simply saying that if you’re making that distinction the training you give someone to get from un to fully trained needs to be modern, relevant and appropriate and as I’ve said above I don’t feel that currently it is.

1 Like
204

Ok I see.

But whilst I see much room for improvement I would still say that the training is useful, especially to those who’ve come with zero experience.

205

I agree there are elements that are useful, but you can’t come in without at least some experience as a CI for officer (I realise you can currently direct entry for Sgt).

I think we need a real revamp at lots of areas of being in uniform and this is one of them. Maybe this is one of the barriers stopping people from doing it, and something more beneficial would attract more people?

1 Like
206

I agree. We expect a certain degree of ‘professional’ standard from our uniformed staff in particular but we don’t do enough to prepare and support them to achieve it.

Regards Officer appointments, I think there’s a lot to be said for the SCC system where staff must have served a year at PO/Sgt before they can commission.
I think something like that would work well for us in conjunction with new staff going into uniform as default.

3 Likes
207

I am not sure why a new officer should be expected to be of a higher standard then a new sergeant. So I cannot understand why you would expect officers to be sergeants first?

208

Which is where a more junior uniform post would be useful. Ideally one that you can stay in if you are t interested in promotion but with certain limitations on what you can do.

209

based on the comments above (by who i guess are CIs) - there is little incentive, in part due to the perceived belief that there is an expectation to say “yes”, to don the suit.

or to put it another way, there is no incentive NOT to be a CI.

Firstly CIs are able to 98% of what the rest of the CFAVs can do, with only some very specialist roles on the restricted list.

There are very few CFAVs who are in uniform “for the money” - and even if they are, they must be on hard times as its pocket money.
as CIs only claim “expenses” and not VA, they’ll appreciate the VA i am sure, but doubt it would be top three of someone’s drive for uniform.

with a CI able to due 98% of what any other CFAV does, what benefit is there for the uniform?

arguable a more defined position in the rank structure and clearer “inclusion” into the group, more identifiable if only by “looking part of the organisation”

but for some, they either prefer their own identity, and standards of appearance or simply have little interest in “looking the part” when they see themselves as youth workers rather than “military” personnel.

I feel, having taken on board the comments made in this thread, there is also a degree of respect given to the Uniform, perhaps not to everyone who wears it, but personal expectations on what it means to wear it, and for some they simply are not “that” person who suits the military ethos surrounding a uniformed role. (not everyone is suited to a uniform role, but that doesn’t make them any less valuable as a CFAV.)

There simply is little incentive for CIs to rush into uniform, because, over time (decades), the organisation has allowed the role of a CIs to become embed into the organisation and removed any restrictions upon the role. CIs by design have been given almost as much freedom as uniformed CFAVs that there is little left to “achieve” by putting on the blue suit given the extra (perceived or otherwise – if only in its upkeep) pressure on wearing the suit.

In doing so, it (the role of CI) has become a victim of its own success. It has allows CFAVs to be part of the organisation while staying at arm’s length should they choose, while at the same time becoming the back bone of the organisation as numbers have swelled.

And even if there are those who do rush into uniform, their tales are rarely smooth, slick or impressive – except perhaps in the time taken to achieve the end goal, the hoops expected to jump through and the ballache to do what they have always done accept now they get to wear a blue suit – all witnessed by other CIs who, may be on the fence about transitioning are put off by the ordeal – of which I know some examples.

So although I complete agree yours is a better question, another is:

why are CIs happy without the uniform in a uniformed organisation?

In my opinion, the answer is because the organisation has allowed it by increasing the role into a position we can’t do without them, even if it raises questions on the “uniformity” element of a uniformed organisation.

210

In our organisation where we don’t have months of Officer training I think that having first-hand experience of the roles and the rank of the people they are going to command and manage can only be a good thing.
It would be particularly useful given how often we seem to throw brand new APO into the OC role, and especially so if - as I said above - we were to start bringing volunteers straight into uniform.
Which is preferable? A new Officer in the organisation for 5 minutes and now in command of people, or a new officer who has a year under their belt ‘at the coal face’?

It seems to work well for the SCC and I would say that in my own experience of working with them their new Officers are in a FAR better position than 80-90% of our new Officers. Better qualified, more knowledgeable, more humble.

211

It’s my holiday spending fund!

2 Likes
212

indeed and my VA goes towards my other hobby but it isn’t the reason i am in uniform or the reason i stay in uniform.

1 Like
213

I think this is a great point and I can’t believe nobody has ever printed this out to me before.

I guess that also makes mincemeat of the argument against potential officers who do not reach the standard at wing/OASC going for SNCO.

You have me convinced.

214

Certainly there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and the current requirement of a year as a CI before commissioning goes some way towards helping the brand new volunteer and wouldbe officer gain experience; but I do think that a more directly applicable role inside the uniformed rank structure in which they will soon command would have merit.

215

Except allowing this is a huge part of the problem., as then realise they are allowed to do pretty much every role as a CI so why move on to uniform.

1 Like
216

@steve679 the ACO didn’t make CI’s ‘access all areas’ out of misguided charity, it did so because it was chronically short of uniformed bodies who could take up the roles - it was either CI’s doing it, or no one doing it.

Far too many on this thread are concentrating on why CI’s prefer to stay as CI’s, and not nearly enough asking why CI’s choose not to go into uniform - and they are two different questions, however interrelated bthey may be.

Personally one of the big - probably the biggest - reason I choose not to go into uniform is the ‘off Sqn’ stuff that I have little interest in (and few of our cadets have any interest in…), but we’re I to go into uniform I would feel under pressure, both internal and external, to go to.

I’m quite happy to play my part on the Sqn, and to help out with sector and wing stuff like AT, shooting and (ha!) flying and gliding - but wing training days, sports stuff, and annual camps that only a tiny number of cadets get to go one, and that can be really hard work? No thanks…

1 Like
217

Those are interesting examples…
Annual camp is something for which I have never seen any sort of pressure for staff to attend.
We’ve generally got more volunteers than we have places. Sometimes one camp option is less popular than the other options and so a request for additional staff goes out, but certainly no individual has ever been pressured to my knowledge.

Sports has generally been a popular event amongst the staff of the Wing, but again no great pressure on staff, uniformed or not. I’ve only attended the Wing Athletics two or three times in 20 odd years, and never any of the other sports events. No big deal… There are plenty of staff who are keen or at least happy to attend.

Training Days… Arguably they should be for all staff anyway. I think that a well planned training day can be an event which staff should/could actually want to attend.

Does this perhaps take us back to ‘uniformed staff can and do still say “no”…’ ?
I really do suspect that the broad perception of ‘pressure to do x, y, z’ which is often cited as putting people off uniform is generally not reflected in the reality.

218

It’s an interesting thought to me, because as someone involved in quite a lot of external events over the years, there are “WO B Wayne” and “Flt Lt Z Orro” types that I hear the name, say “who?” and have to Facebook stalk to put a face to them only to discover that I haven’t forgotten them, I’ve just never seen them before.

Again, I don’t doubt that there have been cases of “pressure” being applied, but it either isn’t that widespread or simply isn’t effective.

219

Age and all the other things aside, you need something that is attractive, appealing etc to start with, in terms of an organisation for adults to give their time to, if you haven’t got this, then you are on the back foot. Given the fact we don’t have people queueing up to join as staff in any capacity, we obviously don’t and this has to be addressed.

Another question that needs to be answered; is there much interest among the general public to wear a military uniform in a youth group, especially if all they want to do is help out a bit? This is nothing to do with what they look like in a uniform or how it’s worn, just the physical wearing of it, especially when you do not need to wear a uniform for practically everything we do.

“We” have to understand our target audience.

220

I think that we do.

I think there is a lot that we do that is appealing.

After all, tens of thousands of us do it!

This might be closer to it.

I imagine if you haven’t been a cadet then putting on the uniform must be pretty daunting. Although anecdotally in my “round” of commissioning in our wing I was the only ex cadet out of the 3 of us…

That said, it does cut a bit close when my partner calls it “dress up night” (for most couples I imagine that would be pretty exciting!) and I do sometimes have a twinge of imposter syndrome. And that’s as an ex cadet, and 5 years of being a ci so I ought to be comfortable enough!

===

Generally, I think people are time poor these days. And uniform is a big commitment.

The key is then surely making the process as open and easy as it could possibly be, whilst still having the opportunity to “fail” the undesirable/in it for the wrong reason types.

So I see why wing pre uniform days/ wing board/ OASC/ oic gives plenty of opportunity to bin off those candidates. It should all just happen in a much more local and timely manner.

2 Likes