Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
221

[quote=“big g” post=17566]To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.[/quote]It is a fair point - if we’re doing body parts then CIs are really extra muscles rather than the spine.

They’re certainly important, but to be fair on every unit I’ve been on if you got rid of the CIs (especially if you kept the ones who were CIs as a prelude to uniformed service) then the unit would still have functioned. Not as well of course - I’m not in any way saying that they didn’t contribute - but it wouldn’t have been anywhere near the catastrophe that would have occurred without the uniformed staff.

It’s a bit like the whole “the cadet is the most important person in the Corps” thing - no they aren’t! (certainly not individually) They might be the mission, but at the end of the day it’s the staff that need carefully recruiting, cultivating and growing. Run a decent unit with decent staff and the cadets will pretty much just appear all by themselves.

222

[quote=“big g” post=17566]To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.

How many attend camps (weekend, wing, summer etc)
How many are in your squadron who actively help in training, activities
The parent CI who doesn’t do anything that their precious child isn’t involved in
The ex cadets who the become a CI because they are no use for or interested in uniform service but want to stay in the corps but still act like a cadet
Or the obnoxious annoying CI who knows everything about nothing, nothing about everything, but constantly tells you how it should be done yet has no interest in uniform service because they would be found out…

The ACO needs to actively weed out the CIs who are just their for the sake of it, not really putting a lot into the ACO then you can see the numbers drop to a more realistic level and the position of CI being held in regards that it should be. For some Its like people who apply for officer then fail so get the " booby prize" a SGTs position, this is wrong as it’s differant roles and how does it make SNCOs feel when their position is given out when you fail at officer. A CI is not the position for someone who fails it is a position for someone that wants to be an instructor but not uniformed it’s not a position for a person that fails.[/quote]

I actually said that they were a vital part of the organisation - just in the same way all Adult Staff are.

The points you raise can equally be raised against some Uniformed staff across the piece, so I don’t see how CI’s are that different.

As for a position of failure - I agree - SGT should not be the default for Officer rejects, but then based on your statement “CI is not a position for a person who fails”, where do you place these people (on the presumption that they add some value)? They would have been a CI at the start of the process - are you saying kick them out?

223

And wearing Sandals and shorts cos they only issue you a Polo and sweatshirt…haha

224

[quote=“MattB” post=17574][quote=“big g” post=17566]To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.[/quote]It is a fair point - if we’re doing body parts then CIs are really extra muscles rather than the spine.

They’re certainly important, but to be fair on every unit I’ve been on if you got rid of the CIs (especially if you kept the ones who were CIs as a prelude to uniformed service) then the unit would still have functioned. Not as well of course - I’m not in any way saying that they didn’t contribute - but it wouldn’t have been anywhere near the catastrophe that would have occurred without the uniformed staff.

It’s a bit like the whole “the cadet is the most important person in the Corps” thing - no they aren’t! (certainly not individually) They might be the mission, but at the end of the day it’s the staff that need carefully recruiting, cultivating and growing. Run a decent unit with decent staff and the cadets will pretty much just appear all by themselves.[/quote]

No Staff = no Cadets, No cadets = no staff… as important as each other

225

Not quite - you can staff a cadet unit but have no cadets (some of the most productive evenings IME :wink: ), but you cannot run a cadet unit with no staff.

They are both important, but cadets are the Reason.

226

Yeah, but give me half-a-dozen decent staff and a building, and I can go out and recruit some cadets.

My point really was that cadets are far more replaceable (I mean as members, not human beings!) than staff.

227

[quote=“noah claypole” post=17575][quote=“big g” post=17566]To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.

How many attend camps (weekend, wing, summer etc)
How many are in your squadron who actively help in training, activities
The parent CI who doesn’t do anything that their precious child isn’t involved in
The ex cadets who the become a CI because they are no use for or interested in uniform service but want to stay in the corps but still act like a cadet
Or the obnoxious annoying CI who knows everything about nothing, nothing about everything, but constantly tells you how it should be done yet has no interest in uniform service because they would be found out…

The ACO needs to actively weed out the CIs who are just their for the sake of it, not really putting a lot into the ACO then you can see the numbers drop to a more realistic level and the position of CI being held in regards that it should be. For some Its like people who apply for officer then fail so get the " booby prize" a SGTs position, this is wrong as it’s differant roles and how does it make SNCOs feel when their position is given out when you fail at officer. A CI is not the position for someone who fails it is a position for someone that wants to be an instructor but not uniformed it’s not a position for a person that fails.[/quote]

I actually said that they were a vital part of the organisation - just in the same way all Adult Staff are.

The points you raise can equally be raised against some Uniformed staff across the piece, so I don’t see how CI’s are that different.

As for a position of failure - I agree - SGT should not be the default for Officer rejects, but then based on your statement “CI is not a position for a person who fails”, where do you place these people (on the presumption that they add some value)? They would have been a CI at the start of the process - are you saying kick them out?[/quote]

Noah, you miss understand me slightly
ALL staff are vital to the ACO as long as they stand up and be counted

I agree with the uniformed staff there are FAR too many not standing up to be counted at activates and my WingCo now avoids me as I have brought it up time and again and at the Wing conferences including naming and shaming (including full sqns that don’t send ANY staff to camps) and I know people are fed up with me saying it but tough!!
I would like it brought in that you need to do a set number of WEEK long camps in your 5year extension or it is not extended unless a good reason is brought out. The problem with the CIs is I have found there are more of them on the books that do nothing than uniformed staff. you have a point about CIs who failed about getting into uniform but perhaps we need to look at the calibre of person we are putting forward. we all have off days but perhaps a set amount of tries then sorry…

228

[quote=“big g” post=17580][quote=“noah claypole” post=17575][quote=“big g” post=17566]To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.

How many attend camps (weekend, wing, summer etc)
How many are in your squadron who actively help in training, activities
The parent CI who doesn’t do anything that their precious child isn’t involved in
The ex cadets who the become a CI because they are no use for or interested in uniform service but want to stay in the corps but still act like a cadet
Or the obnoxious annoying CI who knows everything about nothing, nothing about everything, but constantly tells you how it should be done yet has no interest in uniform service because they would be found out…

The ACO needs to actively weed out the CIs who are just their for the sake of it, not really putting a lot into the ACO then you can see the numbers drop to a more realistic level and the position of CI being held in regards that it should be. For some Its like people who apply for officer then fail so get the " booby prize" a SGTs position, this is wrong as it’s differant roles and how does it make SNCOs feel when their position is given out when you fail at officer. A CI is not the position for someone who fails it is a position for someone that wants to be an instructor but not uniformed it’s not a position for a person that fails.[/quote]

I actually said that they were a vital part of the organisation - just in the same way all Adult Staff are.

The points you raise can equally be raised against some Uniformed staff across the piece, so I don’t see how CI’s are that different.

As for a position of failure - I agree - SGT should not be the default for Officer rejects, but then based on your statement “CI is not a position for a person who fails”, where do you place these people (on the presumption that they add some value)? They would have been a CI at the start of the process - are you saying kick them out?[/quote]

Noah, you miss understand me slightly
ALL staff are vital to the ACO as long as they stand up and be counted

I agree with the uniformed staff there are FAR too many not standing up to be counted at activates and my WingCo now avoids me as I have brought it up time and again and at the Wing conferences including naming and shaming (including full sqns that don’t send ANY staff to camps) and I know people are fed up with me saying it but tough!!
I would like it brought in that you need to do a set number of WEEK long camps in your 5year extension or it is not extended unless a good reason is brought out. The problem with the CIs is I have found there are more of them on the books that do nothing than uniformed staff. you have a point about CIs who failed about getting into uniform but perhaps we need to look at the calibre of person we are putting forward. we all have off days but perhaps a set amount of tries then sorry…[/quote]

It’s slightly off topic, but what if we can’t send staff to camp? I’d go but can’t take time off during school holidays, and the rest of my staff (nearly) point blank refuse to go. What should I do with them? On the flipside, we send around 1/3 minimum to staff Llanbedr and Windermere camps when we get them…

229

And back on topic - I say do the move.

I can’t see any legitimate reason for people to complain about pushing SNCOs into the VR(T), other than the already covered whinging of “but they’re officers, we can’t be the same as them”.

IMO - it will give us a greater sense of unity, bring us in to the same organisation (even if only a technicality) and as discussed above considering there aren’t really any downsides, why not do it?

230

I know im taking this off topic and it will me my last post off topic…

pEp, by week long camps I mean ALL week long camps Blue camp, Adv Trg all treated the same

what gets me is people arranging weekend training all the time use up their 28days in a rush then stop doing anything as they are
out. My way of looking is the 28days are to help you go to activities, not a second income if you are available to go
at a weekend then go, if you can get pay its a bonus. I need to take time off my work to attend week camps the pay helps cover some of the lost income for that

231

Erm, why does it make any difference?

If someone puts in 28 days in a year to run cadet activities then that’s 28 days of benefit to the cadets - whether it’s 2.5 Saturdays a month or 2 x two-week camps.

It’s still nearly 1/12 of a year, of that CFAV’s free time.

Furthermore, I’d guess that most CFAVs are salaried and use annual leave for week-long activities - therefore their income at the end will be salary + ATC pay for X days no matter whether it’s at the weekend or during the week. There may be some who are self-employed or take unpaid leave, but then there are probably some who miss weekend shifts instead.

232

[quote=“pEp” post=17582]And back on topic - I say do the move.

I can’t see any legitimate reason for people to complain about pushing SNCOs into the VR(T), other than the already covered whinging of “but they’re officers, we can’t be the same as them”.

IMO - it will give us a greater sense of unity, bring us in to the same organisation (even if only a technicality) and as discussed above considering there aren’t really any downsides, why not do it?[/quote]
But conversely there are no upsides. There is little or nothing that an SNCO can do as VR(T) that they currently can’t as ATC.
I personally feel that the accountability for SNCOs through the CoC (as it is for Officers) is the rationale behind this notion. If the SNCO cadre had the same accountability as Officers, then it would mean they could be put into command positions on sqns, as is happening. I personally feel that the CoC is not happy about this, as the SNCO couldn’t be strung up in the same way an Officer could if the wheels fall off.
The only people who would get excited about it are those who would flaunt their status, like I’ve heard some officers do. But then these are the same people I imagine who get excited about badges.

233

[quote=“MattB” post=17584]Erm, why does it make any difference?

If someone puts in 28 days in a year to run cadet activities then that’s 28 days of benefit to the cadets - whether it’s 2.5 Saturdays a month or 2 x two-week camps.

It’s still nearly 1/12 of a year, of that CFAV’s free time.

Furthermore, I’d guess that most CFAVs are salaried and use annual leave for week-long activities - therefore their income at the end will be salary + ATC pay for X days no matter whether it’s at the weekend or during the week. There may be some who are self-employed or take unpaid leave, but then there are probably some who miss weekend shifts instead.[/quote]

Matt, it’s not about using the days I am getting at but those who use all their days with out going to a week long event then refuse to go unless they get extra days as they have allocated their days to weekend activities. All I ask is we all know there are week long camps through out the year, so put sometime aside to attend one of these.

234

So does anyone know when this Questionaaire will have to have been completed and returned (Still havent even seen it) surely there must be a cut of date ready for the review and a decision to be made one way or the other.

Someone on here should now when an announcement might be likely to Happen so I can work out which TRF to Sew onto my nice new MTP Smock and Shirt, instead of me waiting with both on the table with a needle loaded and made ready.

Or is the Argument of bringing everyone back down to Grass Roots and looking at Cadet Commissions Making all ACO Officers… Plt Off VR(T)… the next questionaire we going to see…

235

I think that is somewhat unrealistic.

Some people can regularly take weekends off but are unable to take 7 days out at a time to attend camp. Are they somehow contributing less to the Corps?

For me it’s tipped slightly the other way. It’s often easier for me to do a weeks annual camp than it is to arrange 3 separate weekends off. Am I contributing more because I do two or three camps per year?

We don’t need every member of staff to attend camp. What we need is for every member of staff to do whatever they can.

Many of us do well beyond our allocated 28 days; many do less. What really counts as contribution?
In my mind is whether someone’s presence enables an activity to go ahead, or that they bring some sort of skill which is utilised. That might be a specific qualification which is required; it might be administrative work; it might simply be duty cover.

What makes the difference is what people do, not whether they attend a week long event or 14 weekends.

It all balances out.
I know some staff who rarely do a camp because work doesn’t allow it but they are always there for sporting events. Works for me… I’ll happily do ‘their’ week at camp in return for not requiring me to do sports.

236

[quote=“thetopcat69” post=17588]So does anyone know when this Questionaaire will have to have been completed and returned (Still havent even seen it) surely there must be a cut of date ready for the review and a decision to be made one way or the other.

Someone on here should now when an announcement might be likely to Happen so I can work out which TRF to Sew onto my nice new MTP Smock and Shirt, instead of me waiting with both on the table with a needle loaded and made ready.

Or is the Argument of bringing everyone back down to Grass Roots and looking at Cadet Commissions Making all ACO Officers… Plt Off VR(T)… the next questionaire we going to see…[/quote]
I’ll ask one of my SNCOs but I think the cut off is the first or second week of May. If it’s to be done properly I wouldn’t hold your breath on a decision this side of 2016 IMO, as the questionnaires need to be gathered, analysed and a report issued, also I imagine something needs to be done at the Parliamentary level as I don’t think the RAF or ACO can just do it. But I maybe wrong on that.

Plus there was the lowerng the starting age to Year 8 survey to be done first. Which did have the notional start of this September.

237

[quote=“thetopcat69” post=17588]So does anyone know when this Questionaaire will have to have been completed and returned (Still havent even seen it) surely there must be a cut of date ready for the review and a decision to be made one way or the other.

[/quote]

It says returns no later than 2nd May.

238

[quote]GHE2 wrote:
…also I imagine something needs to be done at the Parliamentary level as I don’t think the RAF or ACO can just do it. But I maybe wrong on that.[/quote]

No - you are quite correct - but no change in the law is required (to trot out that old urban myth again!).

Parliament approves the size of the regular and reserve forces on an annual basis, and an “Armed Forces Act” is required once every 5 years to allow HMTQ to maintain said standing forces, by permission of Parliament (a historical quirk dating back to the civil war).

Parliament would have to approve an expansion to the size of the RAFR (of which, by my previous analysis, the VR(T) is by far the largest active part - excluding the ResA & ResO) in order to admit SNCOs.

More controversial is the fact that ORs in the VR(T) would have to be attested (not required of Officers, since they are appointed to a commission) …and whether said attestation would include administering the Oath. If that became standard for ORs, not reason why it shouldn’t for Offr (being Oath’ed that is, not being attested).

Cheers
BTI

239

[quote=“bti” post=17592][quote]GHE2 wrote:
…also I imagine something needs to be done at the Parliamentary level as I don’t think the RAF or ACO can just do it. But I maybe wrong on that.[/quote]

No - you are quite correct - but no change in the law is required (to trot out that old urban myth again!).

Parliament approves the size of the regular and reserve forces on an annual basis, and an “Armed Forces Act” is required once every 5 years to allow HMTQ to maintain said standing forces, by permission of Parliament (a historical quirk dating back to the civil war).

Parliament would have to approve an expansion to the size of the RAFR (of which, by my previous analysis, the VR(T) is by far the largest active part - excluding the ResA & ResO) in order to admit SNCOs.

More controversial is the fact that ORs in the VR(T) would have to be attested (not required of Officers, since they are appointed to a commission) …and whether said attestation would include administering the Oath. If that became standard for ORs, not reason why it shouldn’t for Offr (being Oath’ed that is, not being attested).

Cheers
BTI[/quote]

Swearing an Oath of Alegience, can be done in the presence of Any Commisioned officer of any of the 3Services (As witnessed at Careers Offices up and down the country). Personaly I Gave my Oath of Alegience to Her Majesty 1n Aug 1984 at the RAF Careers Office Small Brook Queensway in Birmingham and I do not recall an expiry Date, Upon Joining the Army Several years after leaving the RAF, I swore the Same Oath and again there was no Expiry Date, Her Majesty Queen ELizabeth II, her Heirs and Family all still have my Allegience.But it would mean I wuld have yet another Official fancy looking certificate

240

i ask the board again

…what about NACATC?
these can only be “run” but a Commissions CFAV. is this because of tradition that a CC must be and Officer or is it because as VRT they are “accountable”??