Why even bother with 2 streams of uniformed service...?


Remember not to feed the troll everyone. It relies on your anger to keep itself sustained.


I’m not angry. I’m just disappointed.


@Giminion Agreed.

The negativity also puts a dampener on us who wish to go into uniform. If they’re like that with prospective NCOs/officers in person, then it’s no wonder why we have a lack of uniformed staff… :roll_eyes:


Well hopefully you’re not put off by what you see here. Some of the views certainly aren’t representative of the attitudes, opinions, or practices of the vast majority of uniformed CFAV.

There are some problems that crop up occasionally, but that’s life in any organisation.


I love being a uniformed CFAV…and 99.9% of my colleagues also do. Yes the organisation is far from perfect but just need to remember why we do what we do…the cadets.

If a member of staff is that disgruntled with the organisation maybe they need to evaluate their membership.


@Valiant your post near the top of the thread shows you have a clear understanding of what you’re getting into, but as a potential officer, how do you view the relationship between NCOs and officers?

How do you think you would feel entering into a single melting pot of uniformed staff?


@Giminion I view the relationship as generally positive and fairly efficient at getting the job done.

I have witnessed some recent events which saw a SNCO and our CO lock horns, which was clear fault of said SNCO massively undermining the CO on numerous occasions in front of cadets and staff alike. Without the clear rank structure that is currently in place, this issue would have spiralled into something nasty and there would be no clear cut resolution.

During my time in the corps, I am happy to say that this is a rarity. W

I believe this would only be worsened by a single melting pot of staff. We are all one big team with the cadets at the core of our motivation, however, the rank structure is necessary for this team to function.


My thought is that in the long run - two years getting to know things would serve the individual better by producing an someone who is more informed and potentially, more likely to stay in the game for longer. I speak from seeing some of the young and enthusiastic taking on responsibility that has subsequently burnt them out in short order.

Don’t get me wrong if someone was keen for uniform I wouldn’t hold them back based on my own views - it’s just the advice that I would give if someone asked me.


Well said.I was immensely proud to be in charge of a sqn and enjoyed my time in the corps immensely .I saw lots of lads and lasses come through and go on to bigger things in civvy street or the forces.Yes the paperwork and other issues ive documented elsewhere poisoned the well but one thing was always constant all the staff all worked together to give the cadets the best experience we could.Valiant wherever you are I wish you the best of luck on whatever course you choose in the organisation and im sure in years to come you ll look back as I do on a fabulous store of happy memories.


Which is all well and good, but if it becomes mandatory then it’s not the individuals choice which could conceivably cost us staff.

I personally would do away with CI for all future candidates and go to the ACF system where everyone is in uniform.


Shock by the comment don’t like CIs. We were all one once I hope, secondly most CIs I have worked with work as hard as everyone one else for no reward of VA. There are some things CIs can’t do, in most cases it’s not because they don’t know how.or don’t want to it’s because silly rules don’t allow them to, as for the education aspect I know loads of CIs and SNCOs who have degrees but don’t move into officer route because they don’t want to.


How would that up us get and retain staff, further more what impact would that have on the Twitter queen’s budget, give the amount of hours our CIs give to cadets at no cost


I’d like to nominate this thread for an award please…

…I’m just not sure whether it should be “Biggest waste of server space” or “Greatest amount of absolute twaddle”.


This is a really old topic, back in about 1982 I did a CI course at RAF Newton and this was the syndicate topic. The proposal was that all Cis would become uniformed staff a non-ex-service member of staff becoming CI but having to do an NCO course within 6 months then becoming a Sergeant and that the commission process would relate to job rather than some interview process so the Sqn OC or a member of wing staff except the Wing Warrant officer would have to do the Initial officer course/ senior officer course before taking up the appointment.

The proposal “that all Cis would become uniformed staff” was dropped because around 85% of Cis when asked rejected it with a high number stating they would leave and it was felt that if they did the organisation would be irreparably damaged and the increase in cost. Cis are cheap (no pay, no uniform, less training costs etc.) to do at times a similar job? This was about the time Cis got a pass similar to the uniformed staff I was told I had to pick mine up from wing one week and return it the week after due to cost?

The proposal “that the commission process would relate to job” was rejected by the VRTs as they wanted the “exclusive” part of the process I think it made them feel superior to the rest. After all, as a Cadet youth organisation what benefit is OASC in the appointment of an ATC Officer?

For myself I am still a CI and as such have been a Sqn Adjutant, Training Officer and most other jobs at sqn level at different times and different squadrons as the only jobs a CI can’t do at that level is OC, Sqn Warrant Officer or hold the inventory.

As for all Cis wanting to go in uniform I can assure you that is pure fantasy.


The issue is one of retaining staff, it isn’t about whether people are uniform or CI’s its about how we treat our volunteers and the time and process of getting people through the door. The role of CI is not what it was originally intended to be and there is no reason why it couldn’t be reforned.

I would go with something similar to the ACF model but Air Force it up.

So bloke walks in off the street get their DBS and joining paperwork done including WSC interview and once their 6 months is up becomes an LAC. There is then a structured period over 18 months where they do certain bits of mandatory training and get a grip on being a member of staff. (This could be delivered by Regions overseen by ATF similar to how the SATT’s work with SASC).

At what is effectively the 2 year mark they either go to OASC and dependant on their choices and their results are then streamed Officer or NCO or they choose not to go to OASC and instead become SAC’s with ten potential to become Corporals after 4 years.

What difference does this make to our existing CI’s? None they carry on indefinitely.

Within 5 years their won’t be a Cadet (our biggest recruitment pool) or a parent (our 2nd biggest recruitment pool) who remembers it being any different. Random walk ins won’t know any different either and would hardly be shocked that a uniform organisation would expect them to wear uniform.

For those going “ ah but no one would join” I don’t see the ACF demanding a CI role as the solution to their Staff shortage. As far as pay goes that’s under review anyway so that can be reformed as part of this, with pay being linked to role on the activity in question.


No regular/reserve selection boards for RN/Army Contingent staff - application/interview and pre-OIC training by TEST staff instead. Army have introduced adult SNCO but takeup has so far been poor: it was seen as useful for some (CEP?) and schools not interested are free to ignore.

The issue with OASC/AOSB etc. for CCF staff is that if CCF uniformed service forms part of your job, and you ‘fail’, then you are a ‘failure’ at your job… whereas those who are volunteering with the ATC can still turn up to work the next day with no repercussions. Hence while it has been discussed, it has never happened.

I agree CCFs should have more CIs - CCF(RAF) CIs were introduced by the previous Wg Cdr CCF.


Personally, I would like to keep CIs.

I generally agree with the system you suggest, but I’d also have CI running in parallel, with joining as a CI expected to be an end in itself (eg if you join as a CI, you’d generally be expected to remain as a CI indefinitely). I think it’d help CIs, as now they wouldn’t be seen as just being at ‘step one’ or ‘entry level’, but as a separate stream as was the original intention. If nothing else, it should remove the ‘when are you going in to uniform’ badgering.


does that ever stop? perhaps in wording but not in the desire to keep “progressing”
as a SNCO there are questions “when are you due promotion/what do you still need to do”
as a Officer “when are you going to be OC”?

[/thread creep]


Perhaps, but this way there would be a clear option for people that don’t want to be badgered.


As an OC I have the same control over my CIs as I do any SNCOs/Officers (If I had any) because we’re all volunteers, some of us just where something slightly different from others.