I’ve always preferred the ACF PI route but if this is revisited and removed I’d suggest current CIs should remain and new staff members join as uniformed whatever we call them.
1 Like
Yes I suspect if current CI’s were told they needed to transition into uniform, a fair number would walk.
7 Likes
1 Like
I suspect, based on the date of the information, that data is from the publicly available MOD data, not from HQAC.
Having skimmed through the summary and start of the report, it looks like a good piece of work. The author has clearly put a lot of effort into it and produced something that could be very valuable for staff throughout RAFAC and especially to HQAC. Great job!!
2 Likes
SIs are not populated in Universe, but should be identifiable via SMS.
Padres there is no excuse as they are in both Universe & SMS
1 Like
however there are loads of formatting issues which have resulted in missing text or repeated text. . .
1 Like
I’ve only skim read it so far, (saving it for the 3am baby feed) but it looks like the author has put a lot of time and effort into this. Hopefully it can give a good snapshot of the organisation for the new CAC to use to get started.
Would be really interesting to re-run it maybe 6 months post return from face to face ban/12 months after the new guy takes over (whichever comes first)
2 Likes
It seems the data of split has been taken from public sources and not internal data.
Out of interest, can an ACF PI remain as such for as long as they wish? Or is there a set time limit?
I want to say it’s a great idea for those who prefer to be CIs to be in a uniformed role, but without the uniform agro. However, if the person doesn’t wish to progress; that detracts from the point of a uniformed PI.
From the ACF website
" Thia period will normally last up to two years"
They become a Sgt after that
1 Like
It’s a dangerous game losing CI’s… Are you not able to stay as a “Civilian Assistant” in the ACF?
On our squadron, until recently, we had 1 officer and lots of CI’s… We now have 3 officers and CI’s…
If we told the CI’s, who are a mixture of ages, that they need to become a PI equivalent, do a uniform course, and conform more than they are prepared we would lose them. That would be the end of sports, D of E and a vast knowledge on classification training down the pan… Leaving massive gaps for the 3 remaining uniforms on squadron to bridge…
That will take a serious toll on the squadron.
That said, if we got our act together, had staff show interest and undergo mandatory training, get a DBS back in a fast turnaround, and then off on a course and in a uniform within 12 months maybe that would aid retention moving forwards…
But that is one heck of a gamble!
Forgive the ignorance on ACF PI’s - when they are in uniform I assume they parade and just act as any other member of uniform staff? Maybe doing things that way also promotes the NCO cadre a bit more - around here it seems most go for commission, and we could really do with more adult NCO’s…
BlockquoteFrom the ACF website
" Thia period will normally last up to two years"
They become a Sgt after that
Or I assume apply for commission?
Not 100% sure but I believe default is straight into PI once paperwork etc processed…buy may be wrong
Yep
Personal experience is there is a push for commission because of the desire to have an officer running every unit which there isnt enough officers.
You have to go PI and then to Sgt before applying for commission. There are a couple of exceptions but that is the rule for 99% of staff. CFAVs are expected to be in uniform
CAs are nothing like our CIs. They normally assist at the detachment or at camps, but for the most part aren’t allowed to be involved in the training of cadets (unless they have specialist knowledge from outside of the ACF) and can’t go on any courses to get qualified in anything. There are exceptions to this rule but the Majority of CAs I’ve come across have been retired staff who want to stay and help but don’t want the hassle of uniform.
If I was forced into uniform when I aged out then i’d leave, and I image a lot of current CIs would too. Yes, we probably need more uniformed staff, but I don’t think that’s the way to do it.
I like the references to DYER throughout the report. Something for HQAC to re-read, but an uneasy read given some of the recommendations.
3 Likes
I do sympathise with the ACF model to a degree - if given the choice you decide that the hassle and effort uniform brings outweighs the benefits and you can still do absolutely everything the Corps has to offer, why would you ever go into uniform…
If you can’t run certain courses, or are ineligible for certain activities, then it might alter the balance and tip people into uniform.
How it works in practise for us might be a different thing. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from the ACF here. Maybe I shouldn’t have had that last whiskey! 
In fairness it does say it’s just a consideration and further consultation and legal advice would be necessary re the CI recommendation.
From my reading of the piece, I read it as HQAC want to know why people aren’t going into uniform, I guess as a uniformed organisation perhaps HQAC feel it should be run by those in uniform otherwise why have the uniformed role. I guess maybe the recommendations equally should read do we need a uniformed role why not have everyone a CI.
I was surprised by the length. It must have been taken ages to wade through all the data and create. I think it’s good though and recommendations seem largely sensible Hopefully we will actually get listened too!
Uneasy for you or HQAC?