I think this is incorrect, and maybe a little harsh.
I see it as there are very much two groups of staff cadets if you like. As with my comment above, there are those acting as staff and there are those acting as cadets. I think these are two very distinct things.
Those acting as staff are normally obvious and stand out positively. They are doing things that you can only do as an over 18 like getting an AT qual and going and running climbing sessions. Or taking on the roles of training officer of adj. Or as you say, running courses (note running, not just teaching on). These people/young adults/staff cadets from my experience are always acting as staff, are generally very mature and reliable. There is however normally only a few in each wing.
The other side of staff cadets I see arenât so much wanting to be treated like staff, and are happy the way they were when they were 17. They were allowed to stay because they have MAC and teach some stuff on the squadron, but they donât do anything that 17 year old cadets can already do. I have absolutely no issue with these people at all. They are still giving back something, and more importantly really, they are still gaining something!
EDIT: I should add that I sit on the fence pretty heavily RE the over 18 cadet issue. I think there are massive pros and cons each way, and it is not a simple issue.
I just seem to have a different experience. And this is how it has been for years nowâŚ
As you say, if there are a handful of excellent staff cadets per wing then what are all the others doing?
Iâm not denying that there arenât any good staff cadets - just that I find that the exception rather than the rule, here, locally, where I am, from my point of view.
I completely agree with everything youâve said. Sadly a lot are appointed who donât want to volunteer and/or donât want to take on safeguarding and similar responsibilities (or are ignorant to their responsibilities). Bare in mind, though, that OC Wgs are not supposed to recommend people for appointment to staff cadet if they canât deliver something back to the organisation. Sadly, but understandably, this is not always followed. I like to think I fall into the category of those who organise things but in my experience some CFAVs prevent this as they donât trust Staff Cadets (despite the fact it would need approved anyway). I got a lot out of my time as a staff cadet, while giving back a significant amount to the organisation; the two arenât mutually exclusive.
Iâm not disagreeing with this, but consider the other viewpoint. Staff cadets often want to organise things, but are prevented in doing so by the aforementioned CFAVs who donât trust them. Some may not know how to go about it as theyâre never actually trained in it (which is a whole other issue)! I know a few staff cadets whoâve done QAIC which is almost entirely focused around running aerospace events. All of these want to run aerospace weekends, but are prevented in doing so for one reason or another, whether thatâs lack of trust, laziness, or CFAVs not wanting to move outside their comfort zone.
I forward all staff and staff cadets all the training and opportunities upcoming.
I would love it if just one of them would say:
âHey GoodEgg, sign me up for that bronze assessor training on the weekend, I want to get involved there and Iâll come back and run a course for the sector⌠Would you show me how to do itâ.
I would be delighted. But sadly even when prompted I get grunted at⌠I know it isnât just my squadron, maybe there is something in the water around here!!!
Bin off staff cadets. So few Sqns have that many now.
Allow CIs from 18.
Simples.
Also, even more opportunity to make this change now whilst numbers are down.
âLegacyâ over 18s can stay but no more to be appointed after say⌠1st march 2021.
Get them in as CIs and be done with it. Not more over 18 cadet issues.
This is not unique to Staff CadetsâŚremove the word Cadets and it is equally true - there are some great Staff out there (CI, SNCO, Officers) and there are some who are still very much only interested in being seen to be involved without actually doing anything but drinking tea
Again - is the same not true for the CFAVs???
I know appointment to CI is not a formal agreement to be doing X, Y and Z in terms of delivery but certainly for those who choose to move into uniform how many individuals make that move with the agreement/understanding with their OC or Wing that theyâll be delivering something upon appointment???
it is all well and good to âpick on the O18sâ but when they have CFAVs as role models it is any wonder we have the mix of O18s at either end of the scale of effectiveness when the Staff team they see (and seen for the last 3-5+ years) were as equally effective and engaging at delivering something for the organisation.
(i appreciate that appointment to Staff Cadet O18 is not the same as a CFAV as the chances are we have seen those Cadets for 3+ years and have a good judge of what theyâll be like, but is a bit hypocritical to complain that some O18s are not effective when the roles models they have (CFAVs) can be equally poor)
Iâd go a step further and do as our SCC colleagues do - give them a route to continue straight into uniform.
We do that already once they go from Staff Cadet at 19 to CFAV at 20 so it wouldnât be a big stretch to go from 17 year old cadet to 18 year old A/Sgt.
But then, Iâd also heavily advocate binning off the idea that almost everyone should start as a CI for a year or more. Get new volunteers into uniform! If theyâre ânot good enoughâ yet for uniform then either train them or donât take them at all.
I know this has been said before, but we could just copy the ACF PI rank. We could still keep CI for specialists who donât want to go into uniform but most would start as a PI for a year, complete mandatory training, then choose SNCO or Officer. No reason that couldnât be at 18.
Also actually we have 40 year old CI Helpful that only does D of E - theyâd soon leave if asked to wear a uniform which would be a loss to the squadron, sector and wingâŚ
I think SMEâs that only turn up for their subject (you know, like how itâs supposed to be) CI is fine.
Weâd also need to sort out the timeline for staff courses⌠24 months for start to finish of OIC is waaay too long.
Iâd politely disagree. I can see a case for making anyone who wants to go into uniform do the year as PI, with a transition period for CIs who joined before the PI route was available to take their boards.
If the PI route was done properly it could include a chunk of the training, certainly MOI, drill, leadership and AFA. Maybe mandate one further âchunkyâ qual from a list (whatever we end up with to teach aviation, skill at arms, fieldcraft, FA instructor). Possibly allow suitably qualified AT folk to top up their qual or become a DofE supervisor or assessor, appreciate it would be hard to complete an AT ticket from scratch in a year with all the above.
Similar, Iâve seen a wexo harass a CI because their hair was long and their beard was a bit scruffy. They are very old school and as far as he was concerned that CI needed to follow the ârulesâ about hair length etc. Worth saying the CI didnât actually look scruffy at all, just didnât follow the uniform ânormsâ
The jumpers/pull overs look bad, but the polos are pretty okay I think.