I may have misunderstood that… But in which case, is it not just CI with a different name?
I wouldn’t personally be sold on the “Ground Instructor” name given that all of us who are not flying instructors are ground instructors.
For me SAC Staff would be akin to the Army Cadet PI grade and as such most people in that position wouldn’t have any need to be liaising with or be accommodated on RAF Stations. (Mostly, there would be the odd exception).
Once they have done a set period of time learning the organisation (6-12 months) and became substantive members of staff they would become Corporals and there they would stay for at least 12-18 months (so 2 years in total as SAC & Cpl) after which they would have the choice of stay a Corporal or apply for SNCO or Commission. (I would put very firm rules in place that Col’s can’t be DI’s and can’t under any circumstances command a unit.
Uniformed organisation, everyone in uniform (except legacy CI’s) people get the level of responsibility that they choose.
I see it more as something that enables retired staff to still be involved if they have useful skills and for the committee to run fundraising without needing staff.
My Squadron has 3 and of those 2 are over 60 and use it to run RAFA/RBL collecting and Bag Packs plus the occasional flying detail. The other is the Treasurer in his early 30’s who has AT Qualifications. All are former staff.
I’ve never got why CI service isn’t reckonable for the CFM.
I have 4 years of service accrued when I was a cadet - you could argue that CI’s, as actual staff members, should be able to accrue at least that much from their service.
Wow. I don’t necessarily agree with registered civ com, but I certainly don’t agree with local rules that disagree with national guidance.
The obvious answer is that the regulations for the CFM require “uniformed service”.
I might surmise that it has something to do with a minimum expected level of commitment.
It could theoretically be assumed that a uniformed instructor will have given at least 12 hours per month over that 12 year period; whereas it can not be automatically assumed that a CI will have done.
It could also be assumed that the uniformed instructor would have taken a greater level of responsibility than the CI.
The fact that we often use our CIs in the same way as we do Officers/SNCOs giving many of them similar responsibility is more likely a quirk of the ATC away from the expected ‘norm’ for what a CI should be, which the regulations don’t account for.
I note in the SCC regulations for example that the scaling for a unit expects uniformed service and lists CIs with the caveat “where appropriate” in a very much less-commitment, supporting role.
Well, my twopence’worth : We are not military, the last bit of military left us when the VRT was taken away and we lost QRs.
I believe that the reason we are not recruiting is because the Great British General Public have changed; Since the 1950s we are more selfish as a nation now and really happy to let other people to do things for us while we get on with our own lives. There are a finite number of strange people left (like me) who sense some sort of duty to help young people develop. The Beavers, Cubs, Guides etc are all suffering from lack of staff. The barrel is getting a bit low and in places you see how the ladle is scraping the bottom at times. Some are joining us as they have been refused the military but look on us as a second best way to boost their ego.
Forgive me, but I feel we are getting to a point here whereby;
-
We accept that there is a problem with uniformed service.
-
As a result, we are struggling to attract people into uniform service.
A suggestion to remedy this seems to be force all CI’s into uniform. Sorry, this is flawed, its treating the symptom not the cause.
I believe the RAFAC would almost fall apart if we forced all CI’s into uniform. I would loose two excellent CI’s immediately which as things stand for my Squadron, could be its death blow with everything else going on at the moment.
We must sort the perception, challenges faced and way uniformed staff are treated as a matter of urgency.
Also anyone who tries to force or coerce CI’s or potential CI’s into uniform should, in my opinion hold their heads in shame. By all means brief them about it and ask the question, but respect their answer and decision, and leave it at that.
9 Likes
Forcing current CIs into uniform I disagree with because, as you’ve said, we’d likely suffer as a result; nor would it be fair to move the goal posts for those CIs who are already giving their time. Though I would like to see if we can’t encourage some to go into uniform.
Making whatever changes may be necessary and then asking the question again should be fine. We don’t need to only ask a CI once at beginning and then honour that answer, unquestioned, for all eternity. People’s opinions and circumstances change and there’d be nothing wrong in particular with asking again after a shift of policy. If they still prefer not to that’s fair enough.
Though, once we’ve addressed of the reasons why many choose not to go into uniform, I wouldn’t be against making uniformed service the accepted norm for the future and appointing to CI only where appropriate.
This imbalance has been the case for years it’s not new. This came up at my first OC conference in 1995. So there have been hundreds/thousands of people unable to talk people into and convince them to go from CI to uniform.
It’s all well and good engaging as in the survey, but then that requires someone namely HQAC to do something. But there is no will to do so. Look at the charade(s) over admin reduction. Should be easy but no, too many other invested parties who rely on us to spew “paperwork” to actually cut the paperwork or make the processes much easier, so we’ve got more admin.
Bring this to being uniformed staff. The question that needs to be answered is, what’s in it for us? What does wearing a uniform bring to the individual, the benefits if you like. If you sit down with someone and say you get this or that, then it gains some appeal. But again the survey ably says why people don’t, enough I imagine for the ACMB to understand, but is there the will to do anything. Also why people go from uniform to CI, the main theme is too much time / commitment expected to do things.
One of the comments in the survey is loss of control. As uniformed staff you do feel compelled to do things just because you are in uniform. You get the calling letters “all uniformed staff to attend, unless they get permission”. Why do I need someone’s permission to not do something? I’m not 5, I’m more than capable of deciding if I want to do something or not and I certainly don’t need anyone’s permission.
How many CIs on a sqn sense there is an air of resignation that as uniformed staff you are compelled to do something. Why as uniform staff should there be a compulsion to do things? Should we hide our feelings and make out it’s all blue sky and fluffy bunnies?
I do things like these and I like the majority are disengaged from the moment they set out. Take OC/staff conferences apart from one or two things (that could be emailed out) and maybe picking up some bulky post, complete and utter waste of a day, just like Wing Parades/field days, which I only do for cadets that go, not because I get anything from it. I know speaking to 3 ex Wg Cdrs convention loses its lustre after the 1st one.
May be if being in uniform didn’t seem like a job, with T&C poorer than a zero hours contract, people might be more willing to do it. But this needs HQAC and all points in between to act. In the ‘old days’ pre “EWOW” with a constant stream of emails, forms that still have to be printed, written on, signed and posted and deadlines shorter than Wigan Pier, life seemed a lot more serene and no one was really ‘sat in the office’.
I would imagine people are unable to say why they don’t want to go into uniform, for fear of offending the questioner, who will be in uniform and they suspect doing it because they like it.
I think there is an overall dishonesty about being uniformed staff to cadets. Otherwise why do so many leave after a few years?
I’ve never had this, I’ve had an OC Conf where if OC unable to attend a designate could be sent, or in some cases not. This is local issue that is easily solved.
I intend to complete an anon survey of current Staff Cadets & CIs within the Sector on if they would consider a Uniform role, if not why not. You can then review this feedback and look to make adjustments.
I stand by the fact that our biggest problem is funnelling all applicants to CI in the first place the the normal starting point, and we should be laying out all of the options.
2 Likes
The problem with the current situation is that the post Civilian Instructor tries to be lots of things to lots of people, and so consequently attracts more people to it, than say Sgt.
Our CIs are a massively positive resource for the RAFAC, What we need to do, I feel, is keep it attractive for current and prospective CIs, but also make it easier to jump to a uniformed position. Allowing GIs/CIs/PIs/Whatever (I advocate a name change simple to remove the mindset that CIs are Civillian and therefore can’t wear a uniform) to wear a uniform whilst on duty helps ease prospective NCO/Officers into that mindset, and makes the leap into uniform less of a big deal.
Direct Entrant commission candidates without prior service need to spend 12 months as either CIs or NCOs. Realistically, most will be advised to be a CI, get a feel for the organisation, then apply for a commission when they’re ready. Aside from it being a bit demoralising for someone who is keen to take on a that role to be told you need to do 12 months as a CI before you can apply, it is also really easy to get comfy in CI role, an 12 months might turn into 2 years or more.
Joining as a CI, but having the ability to wear uniform properly could make them feel like they have started on their journey, rather than marking time, It could provide them with experience in uniform presentation, and drill, freeing up time to actually learn how to be an officer once they are commissioned.
If you join a sqn to be an instructor, and don’t want to wear the uniform - brilliant, then crack on. But if you aspire to being an officer, or NCO, but are not quite where you need to be to pass a board, then wearing uniform could help keep your enthusiasm for being a CFAV, and keep you in the “Uniform” mindset.
Yes, as you say - CI is the “open” position with uniform being something that only some choose to do for specific purposes.
Certainly we need to maintain an acceptable standard for those in uniform (not that we shouldn’t have an equal standard for all staff including CIs); but I think that in the pursuit of setting that standard we’ve made uniform service perhaps a bit too much of a step away - and have created the current ‘CI Default’.
I think that CI being the default is the wrong way to go.
As we know, when we make people CIs and then they discover that they can do virtually everything that uniformed staff can do it’s little wonder that most then choose to stay as they are when asked.
“I’m happy as I am, why do I need to change things?”
Especially when they hear stories about being forced to do things as uniformed staff.
CIs bring a variety of skills and experience to the table; but the one thing that every CI doesn’t bring to the table is that contribution towards the uniformed presence which we very much need.
I’d say that we need to shift away from the approach which says: “become a CI and then later you can choose to go into uniform - but only if you fancy it” (or worse “…only if you’re good enough”); to: “Join and prepare for uniformed service, but if you’re unable to, then CI is an option - if you fancy it.”
If people expect from the beginning that uniform is the normal part of serving as a CFAV (and that service is voluntary and they can’t be forced to do anything) the mindset might shift from “I’m happy as a CI. Why change?” to “I’m happy to be in uniform like everyone else…”
But it will take a concerted shift.
3 Likes
If you go down the route of uniform only, given this is a community volunteering position, what if someone finds they don’t like or enjoy it, but still want to help, what would be their options?
So retaining CIs as they are gives options that a uniform only doesn’t, including giving everyone time to consider which way, if they do jump.
It passes me by that something that has worked for 80 years, people seem to think is a barrier. When the barrier is largely created by the organisation, its attitude and its policies.
The only barrier is that people are increasingly time-poor, a trend in society that isn’t going to be fixed by the Air Cadets.
1 Like
I still think removing the need for 12 hours minimum would be a perfect start to encouraging more people in to uniform. Most of us do more than it anyway so what is its purpose? If someone isn’t attending there are better ways of solving that problem than holding someone to a contractual obligation like that.
7 Likes
The big issue we have is that the CI role as designed isn’t what we now have.
CI’s exist to be a subject matter expert who comes in, does their specialist bit and then leaves again (almost like the Padre for technical subjects) while the uniformed staff hold all the Wing & Squadron Exec roles and do the actual running of the organisation.
What we have now is CI where you can do 99% of the roles within the Corps, it’s not how the system has been designed to work but HQAC haven’t had the balls to address it for the last 30 years.
You realistically have limited options as to what you can do to fix it, these are:
a) Decide it’s not a problem and carry on as you are.
b) Decide it is a problem make some overtures about doing something about it but no real change.
c) Decide it’s a problem and do something major such as put serious restrictions on what you allow CI’s to do. (This will cost you staff and hurt the Cadets, certainly for the short term).
d) Decide is a problem and do something major such as not appointing new CI’s.
1 Like
Reality check with a practical example:
All of the MLs in my Wing are CIs - all of whom I know. If CIs were forced into uniform, I have no doubt they would all leave. That immediately means no Gold D of E until enough replacements are found / more collaborations with other Wings / buying in instructors
if you want people to go into uniform roles you have to make both going into uniform, and being in uniform, easier.
-
massively reduce the timescales for recruitment/selection/training. that means binning OASC and doing it locally/regionally. it also means lumping both commissioned and non-commissioned selection and training together. some of the experiences on here (and irl) suggest it can tale less time to apply to RMAS, be selected, go to RMAS, commission, do the special-to-arm training, go to a Bn and command a Pln in Afghanistan than it does to apply for a RAFAC commission, go to OASC, then go to OIC…
-
make it easier to dip in and out of roles - make it the norm for an SNCO to be a Trg O at a Sqn for 4 years, then take a year out, then spend 3 years as a WSO in a specialist role that they happen to be interested/profficient in, then go back to a Sqn role. when my kids were younger popping out twice a week for the evening was easy, now with a barage of Rainbows, Brownies and Guides its simply not possible - so a WSO role where i can do most of the work whenever i like would fit.
-
a real, cultural shift in expectation - that once someone says ‘no thanks, its not my bag’ the organisation, the hirarchy, your peers and colleagues not just accept that with bad grace, but embrace it and support it.
remember uniforms, that a good proportion of the stress and pressure within your roles is because you’re doing several peoples jobs due to under-staffing. the more people you attract, the greater the burden sharing, and the less burden each individual has to carry.
make it easier, and more people might do it.
7 Likes
And for the folks who haven’t been following the thread from the beginning, my reasons not wanting to go uniformed, which I would guess would be reflected by a lot of the CI cadre
Why though? Just do what the rest of us AT types do, just don’t wear it and adopt No.16 AT dress instead. 
3 Likes
I broadly agree with that, though I can imagine that there might be some factors which need addressing.
For example, elsewhere there was talk of why CI service doesn’t count towards the CFM… I wondered whether that could have something to do with an expected minimum level of service commitment.
Now, it may or may not, but if it does then removing the 12 hour limit might have an unexpected effect on CFM eligibility which needs to be addressed by other means.
Just a ‘plucked from the air’ example there, but there may be tweaks needed elsewhere to support the removal.
Now, down to practicality.
If I have a CI who can only dip in and out a couple of times per month; and a uniformed CFAV who can only dip in and out a couple of times per month… They both bring the same to the table in terms of personal commitment, but one brings the additional uniform presence which is an added benefit.
I would not turn away the uniformed staff or prefer that they go out of uniform just because they can’t meet the 12 hour minimum.
Just as with the CI, anything they can give is a benefit and when they are present I’ve got one more uniform visible.
I suspect that most of us would feel the same.
I see it as no different than my Service Instructor who can’t attend regularly, but when they do they add to the ‘RAF Presence’.
We do of course need to ensure that we’ve got a core group of uniformed staff to run the unit and there needs, practically, to be a certain level of attendance to make that work. If we don’t have enough people that we can rely on to be present every parade night then we struggle. Though I don’t think for one moment that a 12 hour minimum ‘rule’ actually achieves that purpose.
I don’t know anyone who turns up simply because the rule says they need to do another 2 hours this month.
it would be interesting to know why the rule exists and whether there are other considerations and assumptions which are based upon it.
2 Likes