This is something I was contemplating earlier. The people at the top seem most interested in what RAFAC offers the parent organisation rather than the other way around.
Given where the people at the top have come from, it makes me question whether there’s actually a degree of conflict of interest in being appointed to RAFAC whilst technically being a part of the parent organisation.
This is reasonable; however restricting specific events is not. Tell me I have 20 days and not 28; fine - I can cut my cloth accordingly. Don’t try and specify when and where I use it beyond the core activity stipulations that are already in policy.
That kind of restriction I can work with. It needs to be clear in advance though, so that everyone knows what they are entitled to and what they can claim for.
For me, the obvious compromise between expressing refusal to work for nowt, and trying to shield children from the consequences of that refusal, is to do - as far as is possible - the local, weekend stuff that HQAC doesn’t care about, but to not do the station camps, RIAT Regional/national level stuff that they obviously do.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m a CI, and it would be charitable in the extreme to describe me as merely *semi-detached from the ATC…
the trouble being those are also the events which are often over-subscribed for both Cadets AND Staff - so while some (perhaps regular/longer term supporting) Staff may choose to not attend in protest, it would require a consistent approach from everyone else those who have missed out in the past and the brown nosers suddenly get a chance their have missed out on before (and for the brown nosers will not doubt claim credit that they “saved” the event by stepping up)
Taking RIAT as an example, as it is an event I have most experience in from the list. when it moved to 3 Regions rather than a national camp, a lot more CFAVs were able to attend from those 3 invited regions in place of those that were not invited that year.
the event didn’t struggle to gain interest, there was still more staff interest than places available. Nor did it struggle to operate, yes there was a higher % of those with no prior experience but that was worked in.
the big ticket items are those that everyone is interested in, be it cadets, staff, parents seeing little Johnny and Jane take part, the Wing, Region and Cranwell seeing great interest in the event and the SLT for the good story it tells.
In our Wing, annual camps have always been a struggle to fill the CFAV places and so would be easier to impact, but i have always got the impression Stations would rather not host them for 6 weeks during the summer if they could avoid it, and a lack of CFAV interest would only please the senior bods (and Stations) as it is less effort on their part…
CACE is supposed to limit to the number required for ratios, not for everyone.
Nope, any one of a list of criteria.
Any restriction over and above what has already been stipulated is not policy, and if there is some hidden policy or internal edict then it’s wholly unfair and not transparent.
Ten why can’t something official come out of HQAC, in the form of an ACP, which gives full details on requirements and criteria. Then everyone can work from a single requirement, not at the beck and call of a Reg Comdt who thinks he/she knows what is required!!!
just to get you up to speed, if an event ticks any one of the following the CACE form is required
Any event taking place outside of mainland Britain
Any event that costs more than £125 per cadet
A duration of 3 days (2 nights) or more
70 cadets or more in attendance
30 staff (CFAV, Perm Staff, SIs, CWC, Chaplaincy) or more in attendance
Requiring the use of Defence Training Estate
Requiring publicly funded (MT/Clarity) transport e.g. minibus, coach, 50:50
Requiring a total VA to be claimed that is more than 10 days (not per CFAV attending)
if it ticks one of these you submit a CACE
what is not clear is what happens after the submission to allow money to spent. So far everyone who has submitted a CACE has been told “no public spend” - events are still permitted to take place but without any expense. no one has yet shared they have been successful in getting approval for F1771, VA or otherwise
^ do you have a reference for that?
I’ve still not had an email/SharePoint announcement/carrier pigeon about CACE I don’t think.
That’s because there hasn’t been anything nationally about it.
I have no detail, I’ve been messaged by my OC to say that a CACE for a weekend on our local training area (DTE) has been knocked back under the ‘no public spend’ rule - we’d not booked any accommodation, or meals, or toilets or anything, just bog, grass and forestry block.
Whether this is real, and it’s been knocked back according to the new rules, or it’s been knocked back by a drooling idiot who doesn’t understand the new rules, but who just saw the letters DYE and got their crayon out, I don’t yet know…
Does that mean Friday Evening to Sunday afternoon? If so then that is most residential weekend activities
Well I’m taking 6 cdts flying this month and that costs more that £125 per cadet… wonder if my 1771 will be paid…
that is how i read it yes
not formal/official one - just one that has been shared to me via others CFAVs
We could go for early starts on Saturday.
Given most courses have no feeding on a Friday night, it mightn’t actually save much, but if it helps?
From what I have been told on here, that would in theory need a CACE thing done, as you are planning on claiming fuel which is a public expense. Except if you haven’t seen the ‘new policy’ then there’s little you can do.
Pahaha, you should definitely submit a CACE based on the fact flying costs £600 per cadet…then not go when it says no public spend.
This is what I asked for the TK call not long back. Question was unanswered.
I have seen mail drops in both Regions that i’m involved with along with the template matrix and criteria that I posted earlier - As Im using my own car to transport the cadets I expect it to be paid…