Unless qualified (AT) I wouldn’t expect the wing CPA to recognise the issue hear!
Hmmmm… most of those of us who wear a uniform and are Commissioned in the RAFAC would take offence to that.
I wear my uniform to look smart, instill confidence I those around me and act as a good example to others.
I am saluted as I hold a queens commission albeit in the CFC now. It is not me ‘paracetamol’ being saluted, rather Her Majesty and the commission I hold, I simply return the salute on behalf of Her Majesty.
1 Like
the rest of the staff on that trip were, i’m afraid, just as bad.
in the end the hosting unit - it was on a training area - sent half a dozen soldiers to look after the cadets and to sort out their cooking attempts (the cadets were outside, on a hillside) while the ATC staff were cooking their breakfasts inside a barn, listening to the radio, gassing and being wrapped up in far more gear than the cadets had. the cadet NCO’s were just as bad, they’d all taken themselves off to a bit of shelter in the lea of the farm.
but i’m sure than none of the soldiers involved allowed the episode to dilute the admiration and respect they automatically held for these august holders of the Queens’ commission…
I disagree. I would expect anyone working with children to be able to recognise that they are struggling and take action or provide assistance.
3 Likes
really?
you think that its only upon doing an AT course that you think an adult should think it appropriate to cast an eye over children in their care?
2 Likes
Agreed, however I can not agree that being the CPA gives them the experience and understanding of the conditions mentioned, the safe system that the core drives for expects the qualified experienced staff to make the judgment and step in. Having seen more responses I think that this is a FT event and would explain why the regs have tightened so much!
NOPE. its entirely appropriate for all adults to be experiencing the same conditions as the cadets and stepping in should they see the need. I was drawing attention to the fact that as the CPA I wouldn’t grant them the automatic “they know what they are doing (and will see the need)” expectation.
my feelings on the “value” of OASC aside (discussed in detail in other threads) I feel it unfair to tar those only who have done OASC and “courses” with the foresight to understand children/minors/Cadets need looking after by Staff.
I am not defending the Staff for not poking the CPO in the example to get out the car, or the individual for hiding in their car, but I am defending the idea that Staff are useless at recognising their responsibility unless they have done OASC* or “courses” to understand what safeguarding is
*I am not convince OASC highlights or tests understanding of Safeguarding, as a selection process it is not intended to teach anything and so lost why this is identified as a “control measure” in this example
So an individual cannot recognise when cadets are struggling, doesn’t take an ML to see that, and this is someone who proports to be a CPO?
Because OASC deals with leadership, which this individual failed to do in any way. first thing you learn as I did at IOT even SERE is that you look after your people before yourself, full stop period. This person did not consider looking after their people. If they are supposedly a CPO they will have undergone relevant raining to recognise risk, if they can’t reognise cadets struggling to cook and deal with the conditions then they shouldn’t be in any CFAV position let alone a CPO.
2 Likes
ok yes I accept.
although there is nothing to indicate the individual in question or other CFAVs were Officers who had passed through OASC. I know of only one Sqn Ldr who has passed through the OASC process and that is only because of the change in role in the RAFAC (ie a HQAC appointment, out of Wing)
She was a Flt Lt, Sqn OC and a Teacher…
So she falls down on all three points. I do wonder if the GTC would take a viewif something had gone wrong on her acts or omissions. Like medical professions police etc you are in effect never ‘off duty’.
I’m sure there was a Topic here somewhere!
1 Like
There was, about the person holding the position being quailified for a role nor the rank if any held. Just because you have rank, doesn’t make you qualified to lord it over others if you don’t know what you are talking about, just males you look like a prat.
Surely the starting point for a CPO is to be professionally curious, to not be fobbed off habit or tradition?
Integrity. Professionism. Moral courage. Intellectual rigour. Imagination.
These sound, to me, like the fundamental building blocks of what makes a CFAV - that you can’t do the job without them - but apparently they are specialist qualities, only found in those who have specialist training…
1 Like
The problem is the organisation is all about rank with being able to do whatever it is a secondary consideration, where it should be the other way round. In a volunteer organisation you need people to volunteer or be coerced into volunteering, if people don’t volunteer, someone gets lumbered and generally enter into the role with that level of enthusiasm.
It doesn’t help that Wings are a cliquey set up, with mates getting jobs, just so the Wg Cdr gets an easy life.
1 Like
That is unfortunate if you take offence at typed words.
CI’s don’t need to be in uniform to look smart, we have awesome Jumpers and T-Shirts 
I’m not fussed about the Royal Family myself. If you enjoy being uniformed staff then I’m happy for you.
But I still stand by my Non Uniform or in Uniform comment as it makes no difference to me or my Cadets if they have a role to fulfill and fill our evening up with some fun learning etc.
And whilst rank may be important, the day job might provide some better references so a minion might be better suited than a Sqn Ldr, but the inducement for a move to Wing is promotion - has happened many times hereabouts. But then moving into the clique brings on another problem, that you might be prevailed upon to see things in a different light, inclined towards circumventing the realities. The lower you are , the more you can be leant on, but the higher you are, different ball game - loss of chocolate ration if you dont come up with the right answer, that is until the cover up comes off the rails. The MOD is good at damage limitation.
The Brecon issue however was a bad call all around. Similar to Camp staff spending time in the Mess with no-one supervising cadets.
But whatever - all CFAVs are suppose to be able to understand/recognise these things, there is no excuse, even if you have the highest ranking person as CPO.
Surely the issue here focusses on authority and accountability. The 2 things that could ultimately end up in court are breeches of H&S law and failure to follow authorised CP processes. To that end, clear lines of responsibility, to whom and for what ( and therefore accountability) ,are critical. The responsibilty comes with post rather than rank and therefore for me the rank of the individual is a non-issue.
1 Like