as i say this is a cynical attitude
those who have been around the block for a dozen or more years they could easily have seen this as something not for them, but for HQAC and couldn’t see the benefit at there end.
and in truth, unless the recommendations are actioned upon and change occurs that is true.
It would be interesting to see if we removed the 12 hours rule how many CIs would then want to go into uniform. I don’t know another organisation that mandates a minimum time number of hours, especially nowadays.
Mandated hours, it’s almost like a job. 
It’s stupid anyway. I think an officer/SNCO who shows up 10 hours a month (~1 night a week) and actually does stuff is better than one who shows up 100% of parade nights but sits and drinks coffee and eats biscuits.
@Batfink I wanted to go in stronger but didn’t in case it didn’t go down well with some on here.
I think the whole of the CF were done a massive disservice by Barbara Cooper and I imagine many within HQAC’s house of cards, by ignoring DYER. I don’t know about the ACF and SCC, but I feel within the ATC any move to a more ‘purple’ organisation with streamlined management structure and cross working would wreck many trainsets in Lincolnshire.
When looking at the some of the highlighted points:
I can imagine that people on high will look at 67% saying they don’t intend to leave but as said if 33% did, we’d be stuffed.
I’m not sure how you can mount a CFAV recruitment without resolving some of the things raised. How many people want to come into a voluntary setting and be faced with what the ATC chucks at them initially and then all the other training. My experience of volunteering outside the ATC is people are glad to someone just come in and share the load, doing as much as they want or feel able. I’m not convinced the ATC is like this anymore, it has been morphed into something that exceeds a lot of workplaces in terms of demanding that you do this and that, for no personal gain, other than a feel good tingle, which you can get many volunteer settings without those demands as I know from experience.
Hours spent on ATC things, I’m surprised it’s as low as it is. When I did this I did a proper bit of maths based on a year and came up with a figure that frankly scared me, it came out at 46.4/month and I have trimmed back over the last few years.
Does anyone know where the mandated minimum hours for uniformed staff comes from, or is it a “we’ve always done it like that”? Read it and weep Mike Ashley all these people doing loads of hours for no pay.
I’m not sure it’s the hours that acts as a barrier to CIs going into uniform, from the survey it would seem the ever present threat of being asked, cajoled, told in a threatening way to go elsewhere if you’re in uniform is more of a barrier. I don’t get why a lot on here seem so anti CI and like the staff in uniform. The uniform when all said and done is a tool to control people and for a number of uniformed staff to do the “do you know who I am”, it does not benefit the people directly in any way. I think many are wary of CIs as they can be told to poke it and there is no come back.
I think like DYER the results and output of this was not controlled by HQAC, if it was I reckon a lot of it would not have seen the light of day.
The overarching concern is that HQAC ignore the negative points and recommendations for further investigation. Like the survey they should open any further investigation Corps wide, if not it would be a waste of time.
As a pretty long serving CI, this wouldn’t change things me for. I have had various officers try and coerce me into (commissioned) uniform, and one of the reasons given is because I do more hours than the average uniformed CFAV in the Sector.
FWIW, my reasons for not wanting to go uniformed:
it is quoted in a ACP or AP somewhere but how they came to that number i can’t say.
as @Cadet04 indicates it is more about being effective in the time at unit than turning up to drink tea.
that said, 12 hours is not a difficult target to reach - assuming 2.5hrs a parade night it only requires 5 evenings attended, or once a week give or take (throw in some weekend events and the quarterly average will sort itself out)
this, and much of what else you put is valid for a CFAV on a previous unit.
they were keen to go for officer (they were making all the right noises to be CO, but one step at a time) but couldn’t understand the need to jump through such restrictive hoops just to wear a blue suit.
had they arrived 2 year previously it would be have a board and given the individual would have walked it.
the is a argument that they had the right mindset and OASC would be a breeze - but it is clear that OASC is not a breeze even for the most competent candidate without any prep.
Although i think they would have done well, the idea of attending preparation evenings (ie Wing provided training) for OASC indicated that the effort was in the lead up to it - once there it was a case of applying the training. but those evenings took them away from the unit, and his training of Cadets.
he struggled to justify all that effort to prove what everyone knew, particularly for a hobby. like you they were against using the holiday to attend OASC and then again for OIC. they were already regular attendee at an annual camp and due to family pressures couldn’t do both. it would have been a case of dropping their interest and passion for a year to complete a task they had no interest in.
i recall overhearing a discussion with our Sector officer who visited the unit who argued it would be a little over a week of annual leave out of 20 or 30 years of time as an officer - which i get as a valid argument but the individual struggled to justify it in their own mind.
in the end they left, stick of the admin - turns out due to a house move in the middle of his application it spread over 12 months and his original application paperwork could no longer be accepted as the signature was “too old” and the whole set of forms would need redoing!
I know it’s an ACP / AP, I remember reading it when doing my Staff P2 but it’s when, how and why it came about originally to actually provide the context, because this then provides a challenge to its validity today.
The idea of doing a specific time would indicate some form of remuneration.
Many moons ago we got a T&A grant which was based on cadet numbers and their training and I wonder if it was linked to that in some way.
I have a feeling that it’s just there to control uniformed staff.
It also includes your travelling time… Which is a point that I know some people like to “forget” - I have known of people being told that they have to do “12 hours on a squadron”, which is not the case.
If you lived an hour away from your Squadron… … You could drive there and come straight home again twice a week 
Also, since it doesn’t specifically say that only “parade night hours” when the cadets are present can be counted I could argue that I knock that out in a week. - Leave home at 1500, get to Squadron, do ‘RAFAC work of one form or other’, run a parade night, do some more ‘finishing up work’ travel home, arrive between 2200-2300 - x 2.
If one then adds in the other bits here and there during the week and throws in at least one weekend course a month (or two days out a month, &C) the idea of “60+ hours per month” (which was the maximum option in the survey) is a joke… Some staff do FAR beyond 60 hours. Double it even.
which is remarkable - and although explains how some might be able to achieve it, doesn’t answer my question about what is considered “high”
for you that is “routine” and hearing others do 50-70hours you would not consider high in the same sense others would.
as such curious as to what HQAC/the author feels is a “high number” of hours to complete in a week/month on this hobby
Mmmmm. I wonder.
It would not surprise me if it turned out that nobody had really considered that question.
i would suggest the author has at least consider it
although what actual figure is placed on “high” is anyone’s guess. it could well be the authors personal opinion on what is high, although you’ll note they are themselves was a Cadet and later a CFAV with CCF and ATC since 2014 so that opinion isn’t uneducated eyes looking from the outside at what we [CFAVs] complete for a hobby, but what one of our own considers “high”
What I should have said is that it would not surprise me if it turned out that nobody at HQ had really considered that question.
The problem is HQAC, Wings, Regions couldn’t give a monkey’s if people do a lot of hours to even consider a cap. If ATC management was any good they would be stopping people, rather than ‘encouraging’ it. I’m forever saying don’t do it if I think people are doing too much at the sqn, even if it means cadets don’t get to do something, as people can’t seem to be able to self-manage. Which is probably contrary to their proper jobs, where they will invariably do their hours and go home.
I think there is a culture in the ATC to say “look at me” as people try and big themselves up to their peers. I’ve heard comments from people as to how much time they put in, my response is more fool you, no one’s going to care and only say something when you stop as it becomes the norm. Most of these are those who aren’t married and or have a family (that they speak of) so must have the time to do ATC, which is fine but don’t expect people who don’t have the time to do the same.
i don’t think anyone would consider applying (even less so enforcing) a cap on hours.
but i think the survey is correct to desire more understanding why some put in the hours they do.
it maybe due to a extreme passion and interest and they love every hour they commit to the organistion
perhaps down to likely things done their way, and prefer to do it themselves rather than share the load or delegate
it coudl even be that are a bad CFAV and it takes a “high” number of hours to complete the expected work because they are not “tech savvy” with the EWOW we now have
or it could just be if they don’t do 70 hours a month no one else will, and things will stop happening, cadets will miss out and the organisation, be it local or wing level will cease
From my perspective, most of the time I put in on Sqn stuff is spent on things which I want to get done.
If I don’t do them then all I’m doing is delaying something which I plan to do at some point anyway so what’s the difference? I might as well just get on with it when the mood takes me.
In other cases, where it’s not something I’m so keen on, I’ll get on with it because if it doesn’t get done it’s me who is going to have to pick up the slack down the line - only then it’ll be more urgent.
My early arrival at the Sqn is also in my own interest because it’s easier for me to get there at that time of day than to leave it until later when the traffic is a PITA. I’d only be spending the time preparing whatever lesson, &c I need for that evening, so I may as well do that at the Sqn as at home (I’m also not drinking my own expensive coffee whilst doing all that at the Sqn).
For me it’s not about “look at me and how much I do”. But the fact that HQ don’t appear to realise just how much work there can be involved for us all is a concern.
This is probably why people do long hours and it’s a dangerous path to follow, because at some point people would have to stop for any number of reasons, so in many ways better to temper it so as to raise expectations. But you have to look after yourself as no one else will. For those who are married there is always the voice of reason at home.
I’d be interested to see what they suggest for those of us they say are too old for a uniformed role.
Just so everyone knows, not all CI’s are in their 20s and 30s.
It probably wont happen
The report say review the need of them and then also suggests to review the need of uniformed bods filling posts I.e. could they be done by CIs.
