as a regular user of the Google Maps API (and having created maps with >1000 pins) this is not a behaviour I’ve ever seen, or heard reported, before…
1 Like
I have had it with smaller number of pins on older google apps. (& it’s really irritating as I keep trying to move the pin to the correct location).
However I might be being a dufus as looking at our local CCFs they’re aren’t showing in the correct place but they are showing on the road corresponding to their postcode. It might be this which have thrown it out (might be why it’s correct at higher level)
(at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Admins for straying from the topic…)
This sounds like a different problem. With the Google Maps API (which I can tell the CCF map uses), you specify the pins by lat/long in the code, rather than using a UI to place the pins (which is a Google tool to help create relatively simple maps)
1 Like
That makes sense (why I’m maybe getting confused. Thanks for the tip.
Don’t worry about that I think it started straying off topic around post 65ish & went fully off into the wild blue yonder around post 105.
1 Like
This kind of nonsense and hersay is damaging and is the reason why perhaps we don’t work more closely with the CCF RAF.
CCF sections do NOT have to have Army Sections at schools there are many single service sections. RM, RN and RAF especially after CEP. In my area alone we have 7 RAF only sections and one RM too.
Also if there are options to expand the Contingent then RAF has just as much chance, if not more of getting a section. Also untrue is that the CCF RAF actually use Westminster too as well as Bader so set up and authority for activities is easy.
CCF RAF do not get issued MTP, some can afford to buy it but most CEPs for example are issued with CS95 if their TEST Staff can find any. If not its the old grow bags!
I have also seen many ATC CFAVs permantly employed by some schools so they will do CCF and say DOE or leadership too making it a full time job. This ATC Staff additions to schools have brought about immeasurable improvement to CCF Sections because of their experience and long may it continue.
Finally,CCF cadets have joined the ATC too, something they weren’t generally aware of especially in CEP areas.
Can you quote specifics please as some of your following comments seem to agree with me /what I was saying. 
This use to be the case but I appreciate it’s now changed & I have already been corrected as stated still under Army control.
In theory yes all though I would like to see your citation/stats behind your statement of “if not more”.
However if the RAF is not the first section then the contingent commander & SSI would give the steer to the second section. The SSIs at the three CCF CEPs local to me have all stated that the don’t want an RAF section because of having to use the second management system plus the perception of RAFAC being bureaucratic due to the prominence of the ATC.
I can see this how it happens & can understand this being the case at RAF only CCFs (which I previously thought couldn’t happen, I think some contingents get round this by having everyone register as army cadets, do common training and then transfer to their different sections.
Yep have seen the same & some have been very good and done well & others who have despite being exceptionally competent in ATC world have made a complete hash of it in the school environment. The issue seems to be when that the less successful try to make the CCF run like the ATC & then failing completely where the successful ones appreciated they are in a different cadet force and adapt their knowledge to a new way of working.
Yep have several cadets on my Sqn who are also CCF, the local CCFs also sign post their pupils who can’t join to us as they are often over subscribed and we get some join us after being sign posted by the local SCC & ACF which we reciprocate where appropriate.
Not sure what you interpretation of my post was but I’m fully supportive of the CCF, actively encourage multi service working & challenge the unfair bitching/slaging that is made about them by ATC staff which cadets then sometimes mimic.
I just wish the ATC was more like the CCF and embraced more of their mindset.
Here’s an off shoot no one has mentioned already… Girls Venture Corps.
I have never seen them in person and never heard of the ATC ever working with them.
From their few social media posts it seems like they do similar activities but with a fraction of the RAFACs budget.
Same.
Seems like a totally redundant thing.
They should just become RAFAC units.
I’ve seen them at RAFWARMA
Don’t let HQAC hear you, someone said that during Dawn’s tenure and there was a meltdown of apocalyptic proportions.
Maybe they don’t want to deal with the same nonsense we deal with?
2 Likes
I think there has been joint GVC and ATC blues camps.
Why??
Because it wasn’t seen as very “one RAFAC”
1 Like
A GVC unit shared our cadet hut. The only time we saw them was the joint Christmas bash … those were the days 
When girls were allowed to join the ATC a few came onto the sqn, but the GVC unit kept going, but folded in the mid 90s, due to lack of staff. None of them joined the sqn at that point.
1 Like
You know this is a really good lesson from history - when units close it isn’t the case that the cadets & staff will find another squadron - they will just leave. The ideas behind super squadrons, or that it won’t effect anything just isn’t true. Thanks for the anecdote- it’s quite useful to apply to the modern day lest the ATC go the way of the GVC.
2 Likes
What with all the talk of GVC it reminds me of the Nautical Training Corps. It only really operates in Sussex as far as I know.
From what I came to understand it was formed as some of the CFAVs didn’t like the way the SCC did things and formed their own org. Happy to stand corrected on that.
We already are RAFAC units.
Or did you just use ‘RAFAC’ when you meant ‘ATC’? I do get that a lot.
I think he’s talking about GVC
2 Likes
Ah - apologies, I re-read it and you’re right.
I’m not 100% convinced that single sex cadet or scout/guide units should still exist in 2022. (Other than within the context of a single sex school, which is another debate…)
3 Likes
Controversial I know but I think there is certainly a place for them, particularly female only (as long as they offer the full experience and not focus on traditionally female things like knitting and needlework). I wouldn’t say it should be the norm but the option should be there