Imagine the bailiffs turning up for payment, now what fun.
1 Like
Surrey wing, so no issues
Yes, it’s a national camp.
We can go to anything we’re invited to that’s organised by others, so long as that region says they’ll do any follow up work.
2 Likes
Perhaps someone from that region could have a bit of a natter with the industry leaders. You know, sharing best practice about overcoming resource challenges…?
So…here’s a thing.
There’s been endless chatter on here, and on official channels, that the root cause of all the problems in SW region and beyond, is the ban on replacing civil servants when they leave.
Fair enough, we’ve all come to accept this and the fact that there’s nothing that can be done about it.
Accept there IS something that can be done about it. The ban is NOT a total ban. All MOD departments have X number of opportunities to replace civil servants.
Unit commanders can, if they are feeling the pinch, bid to replace CS within their team by putting forward a business case.
All cases are then mulled over at 2* level, who then decides which units are allowed to fill posts, and how many.
The question is @Cab has anyone from HQAC or SW region put in a business case yet?
Remember this can be checked with an FOI request.
That question was addressed at the town hall. There are limited opportunities to recruit CS and RAFAC is among the lowest priorities.
In that context, my view is that no business case would justify a CS for SW Region, compared to a post elsewhere in 22 Gp or the RAF.
2 Likes
The trouble is that we are a very different part of the business so if we can’t recruit its kills our business. Which may result in an argument of RAfAc being removed out of & away from the 22Grp pot to another stream of the business.
I don’t want to disrupt/divert this thread too much & trigger the QI klaxon 
but the bader safety assurances that seem to be clogging things up - would this present a good argument for moving RAFAc away from Bader & onto Westminster?
Then all the assurances & process could be stream lined to all cadet forces meaning that RAFAc don’t have to keep making single service decisions & have to keep checking themselves that their processes are compliant.
You could also free up some of the capacity or borrow civil service from the other cadet forces to plug emergency gaps or as part of business continuity.
3 Likes
Has it been tried? You won’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket!
1 Like
I can assure you that there is a robust process of prioritisation applied to the allocation of civil servants across Air Command. It is clearly a challenging time in this regard but the process is collegiate and transparent. I don’t understand how a transfer of RAFAC to a different part of the business would help considering CS allocations are made as part of a pan-Command process. If it helps, I spent another hour today talking about CS allocations with RAFAC featuring highly in the conversation.
Happy to receive good ideas but maybe this can be done via an email directly to me at work.
8 Likes
I’m a civil servant fancying a change of scenery…
Sorry, and…?
Can this be solved by the Air Cadet Charity?
Perhaps they could employ some staff to support CS?
There’s precedent of this with ACF RFCA staff, and in Scotland through Wing Support Assistants.
2 Likes
Apologies - I (personally) tend to use Air Cadet Central as a sounding board for ideas with a bit of speculation round possible solutions.
It’s a good way to make use of the greatest asset of volunteers which is the hive mind.
Yes there’s a lot on here that wouldn’t work, is slightly frivolous or is working a particular angle but it’s a good quick way on running the thought experiments.
If an idea has got legs / or good feedback then I can ping it through the formal channels as a proper suggestion with a lot of the immediate flaws addressed & tweaked.
2 Likes
Thanks for the info 
- I’m use to staffing allocations being more siloed so if CS allocations are pan-command then this is a pleasant surprise albeit a double edge sword.
In my experience cadets & reserve forces require a slightly different skill set in coordination & management so often get shunted about in a structure as whilst they relate to core business they aren’t core business.
A pan-command approach is a lot more holistic & there would be other factors if RAFAC was moved to a different stream e.g. if RAFAC wasn’t part of 22Grp would it still get the same level of training support etc.
1 Like
I believe 2 posts were requested but prority went else where, so even as much as i hate the situation im in now in SW, atleast they tried. I certainly wouldnt want their workload at the moment
2 Likes
Considering the scope of the RFCA, would it perhaps be worth an MOU to ensure the RAFAC weren’t dealt with as a second class partner, but then contribute to their staffing and lump some stuff together for efficiencies?
As an outsider looking in, it doesn’t make sense that things like ranges or other aspects of common ground be subject to different rules etc, so surely combining administrative functions and IT etc could be an excellent solution if managed well.
Not to mention I see adverts for RFCA recruitment all the time and you’re now aligned to their geographical areas, so the most immediate issue with being tied to the CS would cease to exist?
Just spitballing. I’m sure there are compelling counter arguments.
2 Likes
Whilst this may not work on IT side or admin, you could save money by making the MT advisors & security advisor multi-service.
These are not civil service posts at the mo but might allow a redirect on budget as well as being more suitable for civilianisation as it can tailor to the volunteer world rather than trying to apply the military one.
Sorry… and I was making a light hearted comment??
@Cab has initiated a pause on humour. But in true RAFAC style, it wasn’t communicated until it had already started.
5 Likes