Should a full time serving Service Instructor be alowed to fulfill a RAFAC volunteer role?
There is a SI holding a volunteer position in my Region and there are willing and capable
volunteers who wish to do the role. But are being blocked from doing it.
Should this really be the case?
Gunna have to be more specific about volunteer roleā¦
Wing Staff Post. Region Staff Officer. Squadron Commander. A role that is for a volunteer and is accounted for in the Wing/Region staff weighting.
Iām sure thereās something in an ACP somewhere.
But why shouldnāt they? If they can devote as much time to it as anyone else? If their rank is appropriate why not? I wouldnāt do it, being an SAC, not exactly in keeping with the posts rank.
Exactly. The RFAO is a RAF Sgt in my sector and is doing a cracking job! More engagement and more training and hes only a few months into role
As they are doing it in their spare time, they are as much a volunteer as you or I. So, in essence, sounds fine.
Eitherā¦ this person is doing the job at least passably, or they are (by opinion) terrible while better candidates are available.
In the case of the former, who cares what this personās day job is if theyāre doing well enough?
In the case of the latter, who cares what this personās day job is if the issue is one of performance, and therefore discipline, which should be addressed through the proper channels?
Why shouldnāt they? Does it matter what their day job is. In fact, if they do it for a living then they are probably better placed to teach the cadets than someone who .
Is their ā volunteeringā less valuable because they happen to know what they are talking about?!
You donāt make comment on how well this SI performs said role?
If he/she performs and gets the job done, what is the issue?
I personally would not be comfortable complaining about an SI doing a job really well just because they are taking the job of an CFAV. It just doesnāt sit right. Fair enough if they arenāt, but if they werenāt then I doubt theyād be in that position in the first place.
I disagree with the whole SI concept as no one else who volunteers ends up locked up in a certain position due to their day jobā¦
SIs donāt get VA and not sure on MMA
They are no different to me as have a full time job, which is more (sometimes) relevant to cadets, but why the ruff dealā¦
My understanding is that they do get to claim activities as a duty, so thereās a degree of swings and roundabouts.
This talk of getting locked up is a little extreme. Thereās only a few specialists I know who could be held responsible as SMEs for any major incidents (without being in overall control/responsibility for the planning or supervision). However, there are civilian jobs that could equally put you into those positions.
Yeah, we donāt. Not entitled to any allowances.
Surely it should depend on the individual and the skill set? If there is a SAC with shed loads of AT qualifications why shouldnāt they be the Wing AT Officer? Conversely just because an SI is a Sqn Ldr they shouldnāt automatically get put on Wing Staff by virtue of their rank alone.
No different to any other post or CFAV rank. Region Sports was recently a Sgt RAFAC.
I think this is where someone pipes up about ditching the two streams, but letās not re-cover that old groundā¦
The one issue I can see is deployment/posting - potentially there may be issues with critical roles in that they suddenly end up gapped with essentially zero warning.
But provided that this is planned for (and realistically we should be planning for this sort of thing even for civvies) then it should be fine in my opinion.
Losing a member of staff can happen regardless so that isnāt anymore of problem than it always is and will be.
As I said, it can happen for any member of staff, but it is far more likely - and likely much more sudden - for a service person.
my bold
by definition as a SI they are completing a RAFAC Volunteer role - and as above, there is no restriction on how much or little they are permitted to commit or contribute tooā¦
I know of two WSO roles covered by a SI - they are SME and far more appropriate than a ātraditionalā CFAV
Could this be a wing trying to show a financial saving?
The SI cannot claim, but is holding a wing staff post.
My view is that SIās are similar to supernumerary posts. They give the opportunity to have extra staff on a unit establishment.
The post should be filled by a CFAV and the SI as the post holders assistant/no2 purely for administration purposes? Who takes the lead in that post is a local management issue. This way CFAV are still given the opportunity to apply for the post?
Kinda assumes they werenātā¦