Uniformed CFAV. So, no.
And that’s not my definition, but the definition of the uniformed organisation you pretend to be a member of.
When you have a problem getting people to become uniformed staff and this has been the case for well over 20 years, then you have to look at the whole thing and understand why this is the case and then act to make it an attractive proposition.
Currently we are OKish as enough cadets are ‘groomed’ for adult uniformed service, but we need more than people (inc me) who are ex-cadets, to add to the gene pool. A lot of staff who were cadets are unable or unwilling to look outside the bubble and think more openly. Those that do invariably get slapped down.
We fail in general with getting outsiders in as there is an abject complacency that they will just fall in with going into uniform. If someone asks me what the benefits of going into uniform I am stumped as apart from benefiting the organisation by being in uniform there is nothing, I normally add if you hear of something let me know. You don’t get any additional perks like you may do at work, if you take on more or get promoted. We need something to make it worthwhile and not just altruistic or the platitude of “personal development”. If you need a hobby to get this, get another job.
I hope that through this survey the ACMB do some proper work to address the points raised and address them and come up with real solutions, we’ve had surveys in the past and you get the impression do as little as possible as quickly as possible or decide it’s a bit difficult hope no one asks.
I like the
- CFAVs should be kept up to date with the process of recommendations.
- It is recommended that a CFAV attitudes survey is carried out regularly (e.g. annually or biennially), measuring similar concepts so that accurate comparisons can be made.
Not doing point 2 would suggest fear of not meeting our expectations and wrt 3 coming up with the same general answers would display a failure.
I wonder if the best thing is to adopt the army cadet staff model; short term pain for long term gain.
But to do that we would need to sort out timelines and make the route to becoming staff much, much quicker and easier…
If staff don’t wear uniform, why should cadets? They get home from school/college, put on a uniform and come down to cadets… if they make the effort to turn up nicely turned out, and participate respectfully through lessons and play by the rules then doesn’t it show a bit of mutual respect for me to put a cap and tie on?
Ultimately if you’re having problems achieving an aim (having more uniformed staff), unless you’re the government you can’t remove the requirement you originally wanted to make it easier for yourself and claim you achieved it.
Getting people into uniform can be hard. There are lots of reasons well discussed above as to why. It would be lunacy to say “well let’s just not have uniforms then, problem solved” and pretend the problem has gone away. The problem in the main part probably isn’t the uniform wearing, it’s the associated courses, admin and responsibility that can in some places come with it.
The survey noted some have too much responsibility and some want more. We need to find a balance in the middle that puts less stress on those with too much (sqn OCs in the main) and allows people who want more to have it (CIs and service instructors in the main).
A good way to start would be comparing the roles and remits of other similar youth organisations and seeing where we require more of our uniformed staff than others. For example, do the ACF with whom I share a building have to do the same H&S checks each month, or does their CAA do them for them?
1 Like
They definitely need to properly look into the uniform situation to really find out both why people want to go into uniform and why they don’t.
I’d be really interested to see how many of the “don’t want to” reasons are based upon misunderstanding and fear rather than reality.
Ultimately the Corps should ask some tough questions - of itself and of its volunteers.
There has to come a point where one questions why someone joins a uniformed organisation with a military ethos but does not want to wear the uniform or get involved in the military aspect.
The RAF Air Cadets run by 100% CIs and no staff in RAF uniform would not work. It would cease to be the same organisation - so there has to be a line somewhere between workable and unworkable. Where is that line and how do we improve the situation?
1 Like
Who knows what the outcome of this will be but I do think squadron rationalisation may happen - doesnt solve the uniform issue but perhaps makes things easier in some areas
People won’t know if they’ll want more or have too much responsibility until they’re on the inside and been doing things for a couple of years. Their OC can manage this
I was helping at a unit that shared with the ACF and I’m pretty certain the CAA did a lot of things we get stuck with or have to wait for RFCA to do, because the CAA are on the inside.
Things that need to be sorted for new staff are (wrt walk-ins)
- faster 6-8 wks max from starting to being a CI
- ditch the probationary period as it serves no real purpose
- they are “enrolled” by us on day 1 so they can get an ultifail login to do any online courses and they can start looking at syllabus stuff
- not being bugged about uniform as soon as they step in the door, they won’t know or understand the ramifications. They should be certificated at least 18 months and doing things before uniform even gets mentioned
- start on a process finish on the same process. I just about managed to persuade ‘walk-in’ to stay after they the paperchase changed and no one really knew what was happening, creating a gap of several weeks before starting the new one. A lot around the Wing were never seen again. I laughed it off as this was normal when things get changed.
- Bin the need for a WSO to initiate things, the OC should do this like we always did
I’m not sure comparing with other orgs would bring much unless they are organised similarly. The ACFare organised differently to us, for a start they have SNCOs running dets and very county led for a lot of things. I’ve only ever met 4 ACF officers, three 2nd Lts and one Captain although he was just waiting for a country role running dets.
It would also be nice to have a strategy of growth, rather than a strategy of shrinkage.
We might be parented by the RAF, but we are not the RAF.
2 Likes
You need to accept people’s decisions and not try and understand it. Maybe all they want to do is help, like the parent CIs. Do a few years while their kids are in and go. I met a bloke who had been in the TA for 25 yrs and was not interested in uniform, as he’d done enough time in uniform. But he did many things
I think there are some who wonder why people don’t want to volunteer in the ATC, as it’s so wonderful.
I’m more concerned that people feel being in uniform gains them more respect from cadets and other staff. This attitude comes through in some cadets. You shouldn’t need special clothes to gain respect from others, especially in a hobby.
That is such a cop out!
If we don’t understand the reasons then how can we ever expect to better serve our volunteers or improve the organisation?
You’re a strange one Teflon… On the one hand you condemn doing things “the way we’ve always done them” but then you condemn any efforts to improve them with this bizarre ideal to maintain the status quo, treating any suggestion of improvement as “just fantasy”…
Frankly, it’s lazy. It’s a lazy attitude.
It’s not as though I’ve even suggested something outlandish… I’ve merely said that we should try to better understand the situation and our volunteers. Apparently that’s just too “out there”…
Unless of course it’s something you want, in which case yours is the way forward…
2 Likes
My personal belief is that we should do away with the CI role/option. We are a uniformed youth organisation and do not allow the cadets to turn up in civvies for the potential 8 years they may stay, so why do we let our staff?
Scout leaders all where a uniform, it’s a shirt & neckerchief, but they wear… however there are no restrictions on facial hair or tattoos etc.
I accept we need a position/role for those who don’t want to wear a uniform, however this should be the exception and not the norm, and should potentially have a restriction on capability.
We need to be less picky when it comes to uniform staff, why are they so special, if someone is good enough to be a CI then they are good enough to be an SNCO, so long as they can do the additional commitment (12 hours). Where people fail an SNCO board, but become a CI baffles me, as if we don’t want them as an SNCO why the hell would we them as a CI?
I also think that there is sound logic in SNCO having the same selection process as Officers, direct entry SNCOs to the RAF attend OASC, the pass mark can of course be reduced potentially.
Conversion is difficult, as the only thing you can’t do as a CI become a DI / ECO or be a realistic candidate for OC Unit. Once people are in they are comfortable doing what they do, so why change to having to worry about a uniform, we need more direct entry SNCOs and this should become the norm.
ATF requirements should be increased to 2 years to all for additional developmental training at the sqn/wing level to prepare them for the Drill & Uniform aspects of the ATF course, ATF remains a pre-req for attending an overnight activity on a military establishment, although the WWO can approve those deemed competent awaiting ATF (course must be booked for this to be possible).
There should also be a 12 month solo work probationary period, where the new SNCO is always with someone at events so that they can learn and are not just dumped on.
Well, the survey (or was it the recent stats?) seemed to indicate that about 1/3 of CFAVs are CIs.
Yep, so happy with their lot, & what they can hopefully achieve or put in - & perhaps with less of the hrs “duty” pressure that uniformed CFAVs have to deal with.
You’ve made some valid points, but I think this boils down to military bearing.
We all know someone who brings embarrassment to the uniform by their bearing and demeanour. To the public, SNCOS and Officers look like the regular RAF and they couldn’t pull them apart from a regular. CIs to the public are definitely civvies and nothing more.
I agree. We have a CI, who is competent in IT and plays a huge role in our IT/flight sim maintenance etc, but he is not able to guarantee 12 hours a month. As a CI, that’s completely fine, as an officer or SNCO in an exec position, hmm not so fine because then core functions of the SQN begin to suffer.
1 Like
It’s this part of the point, if there was some sort of change to the CI role and current CI’s were encouraged to move into uniform then they wouldn’t necessarily take up exec roles.
Yes, I guess that is true and it would be good to see more SNCOs and officers in non exec positions. However, we’re that short at the moment, that once people go into uniform, they are expected to go into exec roles.
Although, I did the role of Trg Off for 4 years as a CI.
The problem is, we have quite a few staff CIs who join despite the uniform theme, not because of it. I have a CI on my unit who would walk away if we tried to make him move to Sgt or PO. There is definitely a role for non uniformed staff, I would say.
We need to think outside the box - perhaps abolish CI, and replace it with another position (Ground Instructor?). We could have exactly the same Ts & Cs, but GIs could choose to wear either Civvies or Number 3 uniform (Private purchase only, after a 1st class style standards test by the WWO, and with an appropriate rank badge like the white tape that ACF PIs use). For those that want to be uniformed, it could act as a springboard, and for those that don’t, it would be business as usual.
3 Likes
Understand your sentiments, but are we then not creating a divide amongst the CIs if they can choose to wear a uniform or not. You then need to finance new rank slides and is it fair to ask them to privately purchase a uniform when other uniformed members of staff are scaled for it. Many will choose not to wear it on that principle alone.
To give them a rank, you are then effectively bringing them into the rank structure, so therefore they should have uniform on regardless. Otherwise, we are just creating confusion and blurred lines.
I think keep CI as it is and focus on recruitment into uniform, or you bin CI and everyone wears a uniform in the rank structure that exists.
I dunno, really.
Nothing would change, apart from the ability to routinely wear Number 3s - instead of wearing them only as PPE as they do now.
Is there a divide in the Civ Coms between registered and non registered?
Edited to add:
I was also going to float the idea of lowering the minimum age of the GI to 18, but keeping the cadet max age as 20…
I don’t know. I feel our Civ Com works well, but only after a complete reshuffle in the past couple of years. We have a difficulty with the them not understanding why we can’t do certain things and why volunteer staff members cannot be present every evening.
1 Like
Can I just interject that - speaking as a CI who has been almost incessantly sidled up and asked when I’m going into uniform - that I the idea that if you bin CI, you’ll get more uniforms is somewhat akin to the good-looking, but utter fruitcake who gets loads of first dates, but no second dates, deciding that anyone who wants a first date has to marry her first.
It doesn’t mean she’ll get her pick of husbands, just that she’ll get no first dates.
The ACO probably would get a few more uniforms - but at the cost of that third of its staff who, despite the uniform offers, prefer to be CI’s.
That, for those who find even the most basic maths quite difficult, would be a really bad thing.
I joined the ACO as a CFAV because I had been an air cadet as a kid, and because I could do so as a CI. If it had been uniform or nothing it would have been nothing.
4 Likes