The list is much longer than this, any teaching qualification is acceptable, you don’t have to be a teacher. You must have a formal teaching qualification to avoid a lengthy and even more onerous process, which is entirely unmanageable, to assure those who don’t. We aren’t going to down that route, as indicated by someone above, it’s just not possible.
Why not be up front and explain that requirement to everyone (Not necessarily here) rather than on an individual basis. Seeing things like that irk me. Both the requirement to be uniformed for something not overtly uniform-y (like, say WWO), and this “call me if you don’t like it and I’ll explain why it is what it is”.
2 Likes
Agree, this should be clear and cut to people and avoid back door conversations with many.
1 Like
You’ll know that I’m always open to sharing as much as possible. But this isn’t an approved military forum and I can’t share it here. Sorry.
Suffice to say the uniform requirements are not RAFAC driven.
2 Likes
What’s the plan to get sufficient number of CFAVs a teaching qualification? And can you elaborate on what will count/the requirements?
1 Like
Hense why . . .
1 Like
So we can have CI shooting types, but we must be in uniform to teach a CAA requirement? IMHO, that’s ridiculous.
7 Likes
Can’t we just take ‘civilian’ out of the title (all CFAVs are civilians) and give them a uniform (just without SNCO rank)?
PI. Ask the ACF nicely and they might even have some rank slides spare
2 Likes
There’s a thread for debating what we could do with the CI ‘rank’, many threads in fact.
But this isn’t that.
CIs are CFAV, and can do pretty much everything anyone else can do. The only things they can’t do mostly make sense. What this is, is a step away from that. Also "All RPAS instructors are scaled for full MTP issue." is a rather different step too.
I can hazard a guess (actually more than one guess) as to why.
But @Hercules has said it’s not for here, it’s not for here. I’m sure he’ll update via official channels when able.
1 Like
Why not share it on the advert/formal channels then? It’s all well and good saying “email me for more information” but that’s creating a culture of secrecy and dividing those in the know from everyone else. That leads to toxic environments and misinformation spreading as we see time and again with drip feeding of information from HQAC.
You’re also surely aware of how this organisation treats people who ask questions so many people won’t want to do it.
There’s is no need whatsoever to hide this information, which will come out in the inevitable FOI.
4 Likes
Unless someone has made the decision based upon a ‘gut feeling’ with no quantified evidence.
(post deleted by author)
I own the decision and it is neither.
2 Likes
So reading behind the lines on this,
-
the uniform requirement has come either from the RAF or possible from 2FTS (I believe they have also got rid of CGIs)
-
it would be inappropriate for the rationale to be unveiled on here particularly by the person leading it.
Best thing to do is someone ask the question on VoV. It will then become public knowledge we can then debate it on here & Hercules isn’t dropped in it.
We know the politics & pettiness this organisation is like at times, this sounds like a controlling blocker that’s been thrown in.
Political the best thing would be to not fight it now but get the project going forward but fight it later when things are up & running.
That battle WILL need to happen as long term success will need CIs to deliver it including at region level (uniform staff won’t have the time) but perhaps that battle needs to be had at a different time & not by @Hercules as the project kead
4 Likes
Will the regional courses be disseminated via wing aviation officers or elsewhere on sharepoint?
The organisation may have CIs who by their occupation have all the required CAA licenses, will they be barred from taking part in training cadets?
It certainly sound like it.