STOP 🛑 Car Parking

[pEp]

People talking about “non-core” need to realise quite what we consider to be core and non-core, or rather what the organisation considers. Just because it isn’t a “core” activity it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value both from a reputational and wider RAFAC viewpoint and to the individual squadron in terms of donations.

The point about climatic injuries is, I’m afraid, clutching at straws. We’ve all done hours of heat illness prevention training to give us the ability to know when it’s too hot, and to take steps about it. Banning something because of the potential of heat means we’d never do anything in the summer.

The fact that a recent FOI has shown there to be 0 incidents or near misses reported recently shows that this isn’t some hugely problematic activity for us, and the fact that the ACF are now helping with an RAF families day event we can’t attend shows that it isn’t an MOD wide directive which it should be if it was liability based.

[JoeBloggs]

@pEp

The fact that a recent FOI has shown there to be 0 incidents or near misses reported recently shows that this isn’t some hugely problematic activity for us,

I think it’s perceived risk vs actual risk. Car parking seems like it’s risky, but when well controlled is not very high risk. Where as something like simply diving to VGS doesn’t seem risky as it’s an every day activity, but it’s arguably way riskier than many other things we do!

Banning an activity based on the perceived risk is what appears to have happened here.

[steve679]

@pEp

People talking about “non-core” need to realise quite what we consider to be core and non-core, or rather what the organisation considers.

on this point it is also listed in ACTO 010 so although not what people (Cadets and CFAVs) join the organisation for, it is very much within the Organisation’s wheelhouse to consider the opportunity

[WellIbedammed]

The perverbial nail on the head, well said

[WellIbedammed]

@pEp

People talking about “non-core” need to realise quite what we consider to be core and non-core

Its not us talking about what is core,/non core that is an issue at ground level we know the losses and gains, It’s about hqac and how they allow us to manage the enabling avtivities such as car parking etc. Maybe car parking could come under fund raising which includes an alternate indemnity so the MOD dont feel that their coffers are at risk for payouts.

[JoeBloggs]

@Cab

We have a robust process which is evidence-based

With ref to this, Sir, I am still yet to see any evidence-based risk assessment that deemed this activity to be too dangerous to continue.

[DontCallMeSir]

I’m keen to know whats been talked about now that might be binned off, just so we have an idea and wont all be shocked when we have planned things to find out…nope cant do that now.

[Giminion]

I’ve worked it out.

We can’t park cars because then there would be nowhere for us to designate the HLZ that we were told needs to be in our admin instructions.

Too many cars = no HLZ!

[Arborale]

also bear in mind it was unit CAFV that had to contact organisations/clubs etc and advised some at less than a weeks notice that we are no longer able to assist there organisation/club in car parking traffic direction. followed on shortly afterwards with SW Region banning doing any external activities etc corps ones during end of July/Aug.

[Phantom]

We had the unenviable position of informing one organisation with 1 months notice, spent a week rearranging other duties for as they didn’t want us to miss out. And then told them with a week to go that we can’t do it at all now. Strained the relationship somewhat.

[Firestarter]

@Chief_Tech

Sea Cadets

@Chief_Tech

had flown more cadets than the Air Training Corps.

This should probably ssy enough on its own. Yes I’m CCF, but that doesn’t mean it was different. I saw pictures and posts from SCCs going and doing flying, and gettingn all their cadets experiences (back of Merlins, etc etc.) I got one sortie in. In 5 years. I will be entirely fair, 2 of those were Covid. But it is, quite frankly, gutting to watch other cadets going through the system and seeing them getting no sorties in 2 to 3 years.

I must admit, when I saw the ACPS video announcement on the Air Cadets Instagram, I thought it was a whole pile of rubbish. You can barely get cadets in the air once every 2/3 years, how the heck are you thinking you can manage to get people to solo standard? Are they going to take flying slots away from the rest of the ATC/CCF? How are they able to evaluate who deserves spots on ACPS or not? (because unless you’re doing time with civvie pilots or you’ve games the system, I cannot see how many if any cadets have more than 2 or 3 sorties in the bag)

As for the carparking shabang, while i’ve never done it with Air Cadets, it’s not as if you’re getting unqualified cadets to drive the cars themselves? Every car park known to man states in clear signage “any damage to your car while parking is your liability (etc etc.)” - surely it’s a job of cadets pointing vaguely where there’s a reasonable space, being out the way, and job jobbed? I do not understand how we’ve managed to make that needlessly complex and “dangerous”?

[Cab]

I am not inclined to talk ‘rubbish’ and ask that we collectively adhere to ACP1 here please. We can disagree (or agree!!) without lowering the tone or quality of the engagement. I am happy to engage on this platform but it comes with an expectation of civility please.

[pEp]

Quite right, but it should be our AUP people stick to. Not everyone here is involved with the RAFAC and so ACP1 isn’t relevant. However, our AUP will cover how members interact with each other and use the forum, and posts can be reported by anyone where they see any issues and a moderator will respond.

[Hercules]

I’m relatively new to modern RAFAC, yes I was a cadet in the 1980’s and looking back those were far from the “good old days” that many long for on here. That aside I loved my time in the organisation and that’s why I have returned as a CFAV to “pay forwards” the foundation that it gave me for success in my work and personal life.

Throughout my entire adult life I have led volunteer organisations with national scale similar to RAFAC through periods of significant change. This is never easy for individuals or the organisation and is often perceived as negative or disruptive. This is often not because of the change itself but how that is communicated and managed. From what I’ve seen over the past 24-months one of RAFAC’s challenges is communication… but I believe it’s a little deeper than that.

The perceived relationship between the headquarters and CFAV’s is one that can be described as “parent - child”. This is evident in the communication and lack of meaningful engagement with the volunteer community on not only key decisions but day to day management. Many might say that’s how the military functions, but it’s not. It’s also not the way to nurture and value RAFAC’s greatest assets, it’s people. This kind of change isn’t easy and requires a cultural shift across the organisation to improve the trust that has been slowly eroded over many years. This shift comes when both sides recognise they all have the same goal but they’ve been working against each other.

I’ve noticed some toxic behaviours on both sides of the fence that have become normalised and need to stop. An example on the CFAV side is this incessant abuse of the FOI system. I understand that this may stem from frustration, but the consequence is that HQ staff spend a disproportionate amount of time addressing these, rather than doing their jobs which in turn frustrates them and progress we all yearn for. I understand the paaaion but channel that into fixing the issues that cause the frustrations, not making them worse. If people doing this cannot see that they are part of the problem then perhaps it’s time they reevaluated what they are contributing to the organisation. Harsh I know, but it needs to be said. Continual negativity will not improve our lot.

On the HQ side the relationship with CFAV’s needs to change. The volunteers need to be heard and feel they are invested in the future of the organisation. At the moment this is a perceived one way street with HQ imposing change, often with zero context. Volunteers aren’t paid staff and need to be treated differently, IMHO the HQ doesn’t fully understand that need. Valuing volunteers is important and the volunteers “voice” in the HQ is the Senior CFAV. They are so valued that they don’t appear on any of the HQ hierarchy diagrams. A little thing, but it demonstrates externally the regard in which the post is valued.

I’m positive that RAFAC can be a better place to volunteer and be a cadet but to stop the decline in numbers we need a cultural shift. Openess engenders trust, which in turn will allow the organisation to harness the latent potential of its members and staff. We need to all be invested in the organisation and start afresh.

To get there we all need to know the plan. Something simple and tangible. 5 key things that will be the focus of our new leader. Tangible objectives that can be regularly updated on, and staff on both sides be held to account for progress. Culture, communications, engagement, attraction, recruitment, retention, identity (brand), organisation, personal development, all things that could easily be part of that relationship rebuild.

The silo mentality needs to be confined to the past and both sides need to be open to a new way of working together. The opportunity that a new Commandant brings is the catalyst for change and I for one, hope that their focus is rebuilding the relationship between volunteers and paid staff so the organisation can deliver world class opportunities for the young adults. Happy and well supported CFAV’s are key to the success of the organisation and development of anything else will be for nought if the declining numbers continue unabated.

I’d even like to see a CFAV board who has the opportunity to speak with the candidates for Comdt as part of their appointment process. Demonstrating that the relationship with the volunteers is important to the appointment. Not sure what @Cab would think of that. But it could be the start of the reset and demonstrating that the opinions of those who make the organisation what it is are valued.

I could write an essay on how we could move forward positively and if anyone is interested I’m happy to do so. It’s probably obvious that my passion is improving volunteer organisations and I’d be only to happy to assist in any way I can, to be part of the solution, transforming the organisation for the better, which I believe is what the majority yearn for.

[MikeJenvey]

@Hercules

An example on the CFAV side is this incessant abuse of the FOI system.

When the organisation isn’t transparent with information / communication, then inevitably, CFAVs (& others) will use the FoI system to gather information.

The hard “stop” on cadet car parking is a very good case in point - no previous issues within the last 2 yrs, but directed to do so by AOC 22 Gp as a result of (seemingly) ignoring inputs made at previous safety meetings. Had this been put out in the original communication, well, the end result would have been the the same, but CFAVs would have understood the background & said “Blimey, nothing we can do.”

Perhaps it’s quite telling that you refer to it as an abuse of the FoI system, rather than look at things the other way (as you have maybe implied) - fix the diabolically bad (selective?) information flow from the Ivory Towers.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

@Hercules

An example on the CFAV side is this incessant abuse of the FOI system

Is it actually abuse, though? Or is it a failure of the organisation to recognise that there is substantial public interest in an organisation that spends millions of pounds of public money, and has also failed create a system to deal with requests in a timely manner, and ensure that our ‘business’ continues as it should?

There are provisions in the act to deal with malicious applications - which I would argue does not include most of the requests submitted by CFAV and other members of the public.

I think the bottom line for me is that if anyone, and I include CFAV at Sqn level in that, doesn’t like the idea of our emails, WhatsApp, or paper records, being subject to the act, then they need to rethink their connection with the organisation.

I think the narrative that CFAV exercising a right, as defined by an act of parliament, to make a FOI request is “abuse” or “part of the problem” risks damaging all of the positive points you make.

[bob1]

@Hercules

The perceived relationship between the headquarters and CFAV’s is one that can be described as “parent - child”. This is evident in the communication and lack of meaningful engagement with the volunteer community on not only key decisions but day to day management. Many might say that’s how the military functions, but it’s not. It’s also not the way to nurture and value RAFAC’s greatest assets, it’s people.

Its not just HQ, Regions are the same which further compounds the issue for those below. Especially when each RC thinks they have their own little empire.

[Hercules]

Perhaps “abuse” is the incorrect word. “Mischievous” use of the system is perhaps a better description.

I would love for you to tell me what positive effect any FOI you have made has had on the organisation? You may get some more information but what positive impact does that information have on making the organisation better? I can tell you right now that the hours spent on these requests have a huge impact on the availability of paid staff to do their primary roles, there is also an additional admin burden which impacts the organisation. All of which is negative.

Perhaps consider writing an email and asking for clarity. Simple and I’ll wager gets a reply.

The fact that all you’ve picked out of my post is the FOI elements indicates how you view the organisation and your own level of trust in those leaders. As I’ve indicated above, if you personally feel this is the only way you can trust the organisation, then perhaps another organisation could benefit more from your valued time.

Be part of the solution. Not the problem.

[juliet_mike]

shows the seniors that we won’t just take things they throw at us. As has been stated it’s not parent and child like in the normal RAF - outside of the RAFAC some of us have jobs/positions/experience which rank far above that of our positions inside RAFAC, so we don’t like to be treated like mushrooms.

[SecretSquirrel]

@Hercules

The fact that all you’ve picked out of my post is the FOI elements indicates how you view the organisation and your own level of trust in those leaders.

Apologies for the thread drift, huge amounts of good in the post but as someone form the outside looking in, there does seem to very much be large level of mistrust in the leaders - as you’ve stated quite clearly we’re not wholly beholden to the military way and so open and clear comms at all stages would probably stop FOI’s sharpish!