Apparently there will be a regional ‘Townhall’ event next week, remotely.
An opportunity to engage with CAC and RCSW to ask any questions that you may have about the current pause.
A little birdy informs me that this may also be partly motivated by the increase in FOIs on issues like this, and an aspiration from the headshed that being more open in comms will lessen the demand for info via FOI.
Maybe we should send in pEp’s indictment?
And the first reply all is in.
Another chat is welcome, but I’ll have to start giving my cadets photos so they remember what i look like (another parade night stuck in the office)…
Surely they should have done this before the stop order?
Absolutely
Although i recognise there is validity in the theory, it will only work if
1 - open answers are given to questions asked
2 - those people who submit FOIs are in attendance
3 - for those who cannot attend there are detailed summary notes shared/made available on Sharepoint
it may well be that someone has a question, but cannot attend the dial in (perhaps working shifts) - and although they may request someone else asks it on their behalf, or asks in advance, the trouble with Teams meetings is they are not subject to FOI and so if they are not recorded (either digital recording to watch back) or written record of what was discussed, both questions and answers, the conversation is lost and so could still lead to FOIs
It’s as if someone has thought “this hasn’t been received well, we’d better talk to the CFAVs about this”…
Or stick it on the big screen in the main hall and let the Cadets contribute?
No, it’s about the RAFAC leadership wanting to improve engagement in any way we can. Please don’t pour scorn on something which is a genuine attempt to engage when friction is recognised. It’s the right thing to do and it builds on the info distributed so far. I offer that you should embrace the opportunity and take it for what it is ie the engagement I think folk on here are seeking.
Engagement is good BUT without the wherewithal / desire / resources / commitment to do anything positive, then the outcome could be “sub-optimal.” I hope it’s not.
To quote an old joke - how many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Only one, but the lightbulb REALLY must want to change. 
Insert your own keyword to replace lightbulb.
I agree.
We shouldn’t be critical of a lack of engagement and then undermine attempts that are made to improve before they’ve had a chance to refine and react to the results of the process (or even take the first step!).
At the same time, this needs to be in good faith from RAFAC staff with the goal (and subsequent reaction) of constructive dialogue and providing information where it is sensibly requested…
… because if it does turn out to be another method of dictation and obfuscation full of lip service and half-baked releases, it’s not going to be received well from those who start with an open mind.
An open mind is a must; we all know the reasoning behind this pause but we are all keen to understand the solutions being proposed, and the safeguards that are being implemented to (hopefully) stop this from happening in the future…
It’s in good faith from me and the simply outstanding RAFAC staff who work tirelessly to juggle myriad competing, fiercely difficult issues. Open the aperture a little…we live in very interesting and demanding times. I offer that our best chance to get the optimism outcomes for the Cadets is to work together. Transparency, honesty and openness to challenge are key attributes for success. It all sits with me. I’ll always try and do better.
Everything that is being said here is commendable
But regarding the above, I must laugh at that particular sentence.
I would hope that HQAC and other associated senior RAF personnel recognise that the perception of a closed-off ivory tower, that acts before it communicates & consults, and thus has no perceivelable Change Management approach, is the root cause of the serious number of FOI requests it is fielding from current & former CFAVs.
These people are just trying to understand what’s actually going on with the organisation they love, but I have seen internal wording that suggests they’re almost demonised for having the audacity to do so. To read the exact words “the rate of FOIs submitted against RAFAC” was particularly disappointing, suggesting that FOIs are viewed as an attack rather than people just wanting to understand how the decisions theyre affected by are made.
All that’s actually required to fix the above is timely communication well in advance of changes happening, and a suitable feedback mechanism for affected CFAVs to raise their views. It’s actually a really simple fix, albeit one that requires an honest reflection on the culture of the organisation at a senior level.
Sprinkle in a little bit of reasoning and you’re on to a winner. Let us know the why and let us know well in advance. Simple.
We are okay with changes, we just want to see the reasons why. Otherwise its often seen that the changes are unnecessary.
And regardless of the response it ain’t going to make any difference other than to raise ones blood pressure and take away valuable time that everyone could spend on moving on, adapting and delivering what we can.
The only useful FOI would be how much money has been spent responding to petty RAFAC FOI. That amount im sure would not be in the public interest and be of any benefit to what we can or can’t do.
You’re speaking about the symptoms, I’m addressing the disease.
If you want to fix the illness, it’s the disease that you treat. Otherwise, the symptoms will simply return later.
What time Monday evening? I have not got a formal invite (have requested it) but I can get the Teams link
7-8 pm.
Keep threads to themselves please.
I don’t think much that was said was too much of a surprise, but nice to actually hear it and be spoken to (for the most part) like adults - in terms of actually talking to us, that is. Some parts were still political speak and some of the answers…weren’t really answers.
Shame time was so limited, would have liked to have had more answers to the chat questions and not just speakers. Some of those who actually spoke wasted time a bit by being too narrow, local, or personal, while the majority of the chat questions were pretty direct and relevant.
Will have to see what comes out in the QnA release that will apparently follow on.
Something I hope is RC’s and TK’s biggest takeaway is that if you actually speak to people about things with a decent degree of transparency and humility they will come forward with understanding and a desire to help - a lot of “what can we do” comments were popping up.