Is there anything to stop a squadron opening if there are no uniformed staff? There are CIs to cover and it’s not a long term issue, just a 1 off. I have been told that cadets are not insured if there is no uniformed staff present. This is something I have never come across. Can anyone confirm / deny with a reference?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone is talking :mad:
I have been in charge of a Sqn as a CI when the staff were at camp.
If you think logically CIs have been left running Sqns until unformed staff can be put into
Sqns
If you can’t trust your Ci’s to run things effectively something is seriously wrong. I work shifts and so a couple of nights every three weeks my adj is in charge. If they can’t make it I trust my Ci’s to run things all the time.
For most things day-to-day as far as I can tell, a CFAV is a CFAV.
It may be in certain circumstances that an OC is unhappy leaving the unit without uniformed staff due to the specific capabilities or otherwise of the remaining staff, but I’ve certainly never seen anything that suggests that CI’s are unable to run a parade night in general.
As has been said, that’s ballhooks.
CIs can’t command squadrons, but there’s nothing wrong with leaving them in charge.
[quote=“GOM” post=22657]
CIs can’t [color=#ff0000]command[/color] squadrons, but there’s nothing wrong with leaving them [color=#ff0000]in charge.[/color][/quote]
So, who is in command? Surely command and in charge are the same thing?
It’s worrying that there are those in the CofC who think like this.
Surely the CI is in command and in charge in that scenario?
Or do you all go a bit Lord of the Flies and have a 15 year old Cpl take over?
It is shameful that CIs are thought of incapable of running a squadron for a night or two or more and making the necessary decisions. I’ve got CIs who are qualified to do things that uniformed staff aren’t, in which case they are it.
To me there are some uniformed plonkers in the organisation who regard CIs as only tea boys / char ladies, yet without them their precious organisation would start to choke and probably die.
As I get older I only see the need for someone in uniform to be in charge because the higher organisation needs to apportion accountability and have a stick to beat you with if it goes wrong. I wonder if those units have been commanded by CIs have suffered?
[quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=22658][quote=“GOM” post=22657]
CIs can’t [color=#ff0000]command[/color] squadrons, but there’s nothing wrong with leaving them [color=#ff0000]in charge.[/color][/quote]
So, who is in command? Surely command and in charge are the same thing?
It’s worrying that there are those in the CofC who think like this.
Surely the CI is in command and in charge in that scenario?
Or do you all go a bit Lord of the Flies and have a 15 year old Cpl take over?[/quote]I think that the context there was “in charge” was temporary (for a night or two); “in command” is a permanent posting and the person “in charge” is still accountable to the person “in command”.
So I’m often left “in charge” of the squadron for a night or two, but I don’t temporarily become the OC - the boss is still “in command” even though he’s not there, I’m running things on his behalf.
i heard somewhere up north (possibly even over the scottish boarder?) that there was a OC as a CI?
i dont know the circumstances but understand it was for a duration of “months” rather than “weeks”
[quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=22658][quote=“GOM” post=22657]
CIs can’t [color=#ff0000]command[/color] squadrons, but there’s nothing wrong with leaving them [color=#ff0000]in charge.[/color][/quote]
So, who is in command? Surely command and in charge are the same thing?
It’s worrying that there are those in the CofC who think like this.
Surely the CI is in command and in charge in that scenario?
Or do you all go a bit Lord of the Flies and have a 15 year old Cpl take over?[/quote]
I’ve been off sick for the last two weeks, but I am still in COMMAND of the squadron, while leaving other members of staff IN CHARGE.
Similarly, when I send staff off to run activities, they are IN CHARGE, but I am still in COMMAND even when not present.
The staff-member present doesn’t become the OC simply because I’m not present.
[quote=“steve679” post=22662]i heard somewhere up north (possibly even over the scottish boarder?) that there was a OC as a CI?
i dont know the circumstances but understand it was for a duration of “months” rather than “weeks”[/quote]
yes
there has been a few I personnaly know about that was months,
but there was one that was YEARS
[quote=“big g” post=22670][quote=“steve679” post=22662]i heard somewhere up north (possibly even over the scottish boarder?) that there was a OC as a CI?
i dont know the circumstances but understand it was for a duration of “months” rather than “weeks”[/quote]
yes
there has been a few I personnaly know about that was months,
but there was one that was YEARS[/quote]
In many ways makes a mockery of the system that says you have to be in uniform to command a unit.
If they’ve continued to thrive and not fold, it makes you wonder what difference having a uniformed bod as makes? Lets’s face it there is less and less executive power sitting with Sqn Cdrs now than before, so does the uniform matter in terms of what we actually do?
the same could be asked with the difference between VRT and ATC
are the roles different? > both are CFAVs
are the hours different? > no, all asked to do a mimium of 12 hours
are the responsibilities different? > no, SNCOs and WOs are equally responsible at Squadron and events…no one goes “i’m just a SNCO, above my pay grade” (like CIs so often do)
arguably there are certain aspects that a VRT can do/is responsible for like being the Rupert at an NACATC camp but the generally day-to-day Squadron activities there is very little between them yet one is a civilian the other a reservist.
the same could be asked with the difference between VRT and ATC
are the roles different? > both are CFAVs
are the hours different? > no, all asked to do a mimium of 12 hours
are the responsibilities different? > no, SNCOs and WOs are equally responsible at Squadron and events…no one goes “i’m just a SNCO, above my pay grade” (like CIs so often do).[/quote]
Can’t really blame CIs for the attitude they sometimes take, given the shoddy way they are treated by the organisation and lot of individuals in it. On one hand there is always lots of eulogising about the work CIs do, how much they are respected etc, but this isn’t reflected in the way the organisation works and is set up.
Except there is a difference between VRT and SNCO in that VRT could be held accountable through the military b
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
could be, sure - but never are. VR(T) might get ‘invited to leave’, or not extended, but thats exactly what happens with SNCO’s or CI’s - the organisation, through no fault of its own, has two ‘punishment’ settings: please get better, or leave. neither is a punishment by any reasonable definition.
no VR(T), regardless of how seriously they break the ACO’s rules, will go to prison, or lose their house. niether will they find themselves being the night duty Gate Guard at King Edwards Point for the next 5 years.
without sanctions there is no accountability - you might get a talking to, or a stiff letter, or even a very embarrassing ‘being thrown off the premises in front of all the cadets’, but thats the end of it - you’ll still go home to your missus/mr, you’ll still go to work the next day and save up and plan for that summer holiday in the south of France next year…
I personally know of a squadron that was run by CIs for months. There were Wing staff ‘in charge’ but the day to day running of the squadron was done by the CIs.
Those CIs prevented the squadron from closing. There were no uniformed staff AT ALL on the squadron, however some of us around the wing helped out on occasions when required.
Well I know two VR(T) who did serve time in pokey for their misdeeds… Civil pokey, but pokey all the same. There is also the famous case of the Flt Lt VR(T) who was stripped of his MBE.
As for losing your house… See how much you manage to hang on to when a cadet dies or is injured due to your negligence…
That would be the same regardless of status and come to that organisation, if negligence was proved.
[quote=“angus” post=22681] VR(T) might get ‘invited to leave’, or not extended, but thats exactly what happens with SNCO’s or CI’s - the organisation, through no fault of its own, has two ‘punishment’ settings: please get better, or leave. neither is a punishment by any reasonable definition.
no VR(T), regardless of how seriously they break the ACO’s rules, will go to prison, or lose their house. niether will they find themselves being the night duty Gate Guard at King Edwards Point for the next 5 years.
without sanctions there is no accountability - you might get a talking to, or a stiff letter, or even a very embarrassing ‘being thrown off the premises in front of all the cadets’, but thats the end of it - you’ll still go home to your missus/mr, you’ll still go to work the next day and save up and plan for that summer holiday in the south of France next year…[/quote]
When all said and done it’s a hobby.
I’m intrigued what sanctions you feel should be in place given they need to be proportionate given we have no contract of employment and all the other benefits associated with a job. Getting asked to leave is about the most that can happen. The threat and happenstance of anymore as the norm would prevent people from giving up their free time. It would make for interesting small print and would need to be fully explained at the point of joining. I imagine there are some in the higher echelons who would like similar, but when all said and done most of them are civil servants and playing RAF after leaving … is the ATC is their hobby at a different level perhaps, but effectively still mostly unaccountable.
As GOM says there are exceptions, such as the chap who embezelled several £000 from the squadron he was in charge of, if IIRC wrote his own MBE citatiion and got time in jail and no doubt more than we hear of are treated a little more harshly and let’s face it if you are convicted of offences against children, it’s effects are so much more wide ranging in the modern world.