These have been interesting comments.
However, just to take a small step back.
Why is there such a problem with CI’s being accepted into Sqn’s then?
Many have commented that they are the backbone of a squadron and I would agree. At my Sqn we are lucky enough to have CI’s who are quite happy doing what they do with little interest in going into uniform if any at all.
So why do some, my old Sqn in particular, have such a downer on them? Generally, they bring a nucleus of knowledge, a large skill base and a complete devotion to improving young people’s lives.
It is interesting because the two members of staff at my old Sqn who were the main cause of my CI colleagues departure are exampled in some of the previous threads. One was a SNCO who went straight from being a Cadet to SNCO (no time as a CI) the other was a retired RAFVR(T) officer, former CO of a Sqn and too stuck in their ways to see past anyone whose entire history was at that particular Sqn.
Is it then time to reduce the retirement age to remove the dinosaur approach to Sqn life and also to do as GHE2 suggests, which is all CFAV do 4 years as a CI. If that seems a little harsh, then no cadets should be allowed to make the direct step up to being uniformed CFAV until a period of CI work is completed.
i don’t know - half of me thinks its a very good idea: people would do a ‘taster’, meaning they can make better decisions about what path is for them, but the other half fears that CI would become the ‘depot’ rank, not a respected choice based on informed preference, but the ‘oh, you’re still a CI…’ option to be looked down upon in the same way kids at school look down upon kids of their age who get kept behind a year.
i’m absolutely of the view that cadets should never, ever go from cadet to SNCO/VR(T) - i think they should have a minimum 6 months break, ideally a couple of years break, before returning as a CI. perhaps just changing the eligability criteria - no uniformed service before 24, and CI’s at 22.
unfortunately, regardless of the processes and structures, it comes down to a human issue - recruit less IDIOTS!
i don’t know - half of me thinks its a very good idea: people would do a ‘taster’, meaning they can make better decisions about what path is for them, but the other half fears that CI would become the ‘depot’ rank, not a respected choice based on informed preference, but the ‘oh, you’re still a CI…’ option to be looked down upon in the same way kids at school look down upon kids of their age who get kept behind a year.
i’m absolutely of the view that cadets should never, ever go from cadet to SNCO/VR(T) - i think they should have a minimum 6 months break, ideally a couple of years break, before returning as a CI. perhaps just changing the eligability criteria - no uniformed service before 24, and CI’s at 22.
unfortunately, regardless of the processes and structures, it comes down to a human issue - recruit less IDIOTS![/quote]
Agreed. Especially the very last bit! Although my MacBook got covered in tea spray when I read it!! Lol. You might get told off now for using naughty words!
Locally, we had a rule (not sure if it was a HQAC directive actually :unsure: ) that any Cadet had to be a CI for 12 months before being considered for uniformed service. Along with this, whereever possible, the 12 months was done at a different Sqn from the one they were a cadet at.
Less idiots, agreed, and I agree with ghe2, it’s all a balance. One of the rules really, rather than make all cadets stay a ci for a while, is to ensure they transfer to another squadron if they continue as a ci or in uniform. Staying at the same squadron usually doesn’t work, although I know you guys will probably know exceptions.
However the issue here isn’t about going into uniform. It’s getting command or the responsibility. Cohesion of the unit is one of the priorities of the oc and if they cannot do it then unless there is someone that everyone accepts able to do that for him ultimately your on a loser.
Wings HAVE to ensure that OCs who take over a squadron are able to command it and lead the staf. If not simply don’t put them in that position but place them with a mentor who can teach and lead by example. There are squadrons like that around. Then again having volunteers travel more than a few minutes might be against their civil liberties :? So they won’t want to drive the 40-50 minutes every so often to get the experience they need.
The unfortunate position the organisation has got itself into is one of uniform being a bums on seats mindset. Much of the reason for this is experienced uniform staff have been slowly hacked off by policies set from above which are nonsensical and being treated like second class citizens. Because other staff see this, they are not overly encouraged to go into uniform or ‘step up’.
Every year at our COs annual meeting we are told the Wing’s current position against establishent for adult staff. Every year for as many as I’ve attended we have been below for uniform and over for CI. Every year we are effectively told to get more people into uniform. To this end there is a sense that being a CI for more than say 4/5 years has become almost frowned upon and just seen as holding “rank” until someone decides which uniform to jump into, rather than a duly respected position in its own right in the same way as anyone in uniform. One of my old cadet mates has done 24 years as a CI and loves telling people where to poke it, when they ask him about uniform. I can see this notion wrt CIs developing in one of the other threads where the idea of demarcating staff CI/SNCO/Officer and what their responsibilities would be is suggested. A couple of the specific suggestions for uniformed staff OK, but the general tone, almost ostracised anyone not in uniform.
Frankly rather than engendering a culture of almost frowning upon CIs, HQAC should revisit staff policies and ensure that all staff categories are fully respected, even to the point whereby CIs are entitled to remuneration and some form of service recognition similar to CFM. I believe the impetus has to come from HQAC to enforce the idea and not done ‘locally’, everyone locally should be onside. We have CIs who are far more interested and expert in things and would be far better as the person on Wing with responsibility, but because they aren’t in uniform the roles go to people who don’t give a monkey’s and as a result we all suffer.
As for transferring ex-cadets all well and good in theory and having spent 9 months on a sqn when I became a WO it is something I think is a good idea. But if they don’t drive and you are not surrounded by squadrons that have a good public transport links, it sort of negates that idea. Even where I live buses only have a 1 hour service before 9pm and 1½ hour service after 9pm and the local squadrons are a good 15 minutes from where the bus stops, disregarding the distance they may live from the bus stop. Then there is the 45-60 minute bus journey on a good day. So for a 1900 parade start you could be leaving at 1730 to ensure being there on time and that’s for around an 8 mile journey, then who knows what time you’d get home if you missed a bus and taxis charge £9 a pop.
perhaps we should re-wind a bit.
in those fateful words, when i was a cadet - 88 to 92 - by far the overwhelming majority of OC’s were in their 40’s and 50’s, and in my wing there were probably only 10 VR(T) under the age of 27. WO’s, as it was then, broadly followed the same age brackets.
when i rejoined as a CI in 2010 every OC in my sector was under 30, and half of them under 26. the only older VR(T) i met were wing staff, and a couple of Sqn officers from out in the sticks. SNCO’s average age had taken a similar tumble, and with both groups the template was CWO-Uniform, little or no gap, and everyone swapping about within 4 Sqn’s, all of which were within 5 minutes drive of each other.
what was the mechanism employed that took us from being an orgnisation where 20 years ago new VR(T)/SNCO’s were usually 35+, and had been away from the ACO for 15 years, to one where ‘the average’ new VR(T) or SNCO is early 20’s, and may not ever have been away from the ACO?
i understand why the ACO needed to make more of an effort to get uniformed staff, and why it saw timing out CWO’s as a source of uniformed adult staff - but i get the distinct feeling that ‘bringing in young blood’ has gone waaaay to far, and that the general inexperience in life and managing people found in 25yo’s is responsible for many of the problems this thread, and perhaps some of the ‘feral’ threads, have shown up.
your views?
Wellllll. Not so sure being a good OC is age related. I know of one OC in his 20s that is motivated, inspirational, a real people person and in general makes a great Squadron Commander. I also know another OC who has 20 plus years in the RAF, who hasn’t a clue. It really is down to the individual and how they treat people.
I think we have discussed on other threads things like terms of reference and appraisals and maybe AC ACO has got a point that if we do treat all staff the same with these then they might get appreciated more or have better guidance.
I did have a discussion a while ago with a younger officer. I took cakes into wing hq after a shopping trip just as a little gesture. His point was it wasn’t in his nature to reward people simply for doing their job. They don’t deserve gestures of appreciation as they don’t volunteer anything. They just do their job and be paid for it.
I have a different opinion and it’s backed up with scientific study which is hugely boring unless your into HR and psychology (google Maslow pyramid of needs and herzberg theory, yawn) that just little gestures make people feel more appreciated and they are likely to try harder and exceed expectations if they feel better about their job because of it.
Is that something we should expect from HQ Air Cadets or really, is it something we should expect more locally. We recently had an Xmas meal for staff. The first one on the squadron and sadly we had to pay for it ourselves but significantly all the staff were there with their spouses. It’s just one way of showing appreciation and gelling the unit. What else do your squadrons do, if any, to make the staff feel appreciated and motivated?
[quote=“angus” post=14230]i’m absolutely of the view that cadets should never, ever go from cadet to SNCO/VR(T) - i think they should have a minimum 6 months break, ideally a couple of years break, before returning as a CI. perhaps just changing the eligability criteria - no uniformed service before 24, and CI’s at 22.[/quote]If that had been the regime when I timed out as a cadet I’d have gone straight to the ACF or SCC, and the ATC would have lost yet another member of staff.
I really can’t see why people get hung up on the whole ‘never put ex-cadets directly into uniform’ thing. As I’ve posted many times before, I was very briefly a CI whilst awaiting my region board - strangely enough I was exactly the same person as I was after commissioning, I just wore slightly different clothes.
I know I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. The ATC needs a genuine ‘probationary’ rank, be that AC or PI, for folks coming in as staff. Make it uniformed and somewhere to screw up and learn the basics with minimum responsibility, then after a probationary period of however long, let them make the choice of VRT (because they like admin and G and T), SNCO (because they like shiny things and playing in the mud) or CI (because they don’t want to be ‘military’ but they want to do youth work/ teach the stuff the ATC offers).
This would apply to anyone reaching 18 who wants to stay or coming in off the street.
With some of my family members and a number of close friends being CIs I have witnessed first hand the condescending treatment dished out by some uniformed staff.
The CI cadre brings vast amounts of experience and knowledge from a very diverse range of backgrounds. I view the title CI to be a highly respectable and admirable in its own right.
This is one reason that I am against the idea of making “aged out” cadets serve as CIs before going into uniform. My reasoning is that this attitude devalues the role of the CI and effectively reduces the position to one of treading water until they can apply for uniform. Much the same as Sgt(ATC) was seen (and in some cases still is seen) as a holding position before becoming an officer
unfortunately i have to agree…
i say unfortunately in that is it true what BMA says which is a shame and just as it is with ex-cadets going into CI, i see CIs going into Sgt
far too often i have seen CIs who “want a bit more” appointed Sgt to “get a taste of the uniform” which devalues the rank of Sgt for those genuine Sgts who are Sgts because they want to be SNCOs
what annoyes me most is it tends to be what i refer to as “Parent CIs” - CIs who have their kids on Sqn and is the only reason they walked through the door in the first place. these are typically not ex-Cadets, and without prior military experience or service, and as such as aspect of understand of the “military ethos” is missing.
i cant claim to be anything more than an ex-Cadet turn staff but i know “how the game works and how to play it”
i have always said CI is equal rank to WO and as such should be offered the same same respect and dignity
why do i say this?
a Civilian, ATC CI or genuine “off the street” civlian, will be referred to as a “sir” or “ma’am” and they are catered for and accomodated in the WO & SNCOs mess - the only people who get that treatment are WOs…QED
[quote=“steve679” post=14257]why do i say this?
a Civilian, ATC CI or genuine “off the street” civlian, will be referred to as a “sir” or “ma’am” and they are catered for and accomodated in the WO & SNCOs mess - the only people who get that treatment are WOs…QED[/quote]
This does seem a little unfair to sergeants and flight sergeants, who have to undergo a selection process to get where they are. I certainly wouldn’t see a CI as being higher in rank or status than a sergeant.
I think that for the most part they’re more like a limb. The uniformed staff core are like the backbone, brain, heart, etc - vital and it’s recognised as such.
CI’s are like a limb - not always noticed quite as much, not actually vital to life; but you just see how hard it is living without one! Let alone all four (or however many a unit actually has).
[quote=“tango_lima” post=14251]I know I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. The ATC needs a genuine ‘probationary’ rank, be that AC or PI, for folks coming in as staff. Make it uniformed and somewhere to screw up and learn the basics with minimum responsibility, then after a probationary period of however long, let them make the choice of VRT (because they like admin and G and T), SNCO (because they like shiny things and playing in the mud) or CI (because they don’t want to be ‘military’ but they want to do youth work/ teach the stuff the ATC offers).
This would apply to anyone reaching 18 who wants to stay or coming in off the street.[/quote]I would tend to agree, other than I can’t see why CIs would go through the probationary, uniformed rank first.
That way you either join as an AC - potential future NCO/officer (although not necessarily mandatory)
Or as a CI - a civilian with relevant experience who is there primarily to instruct and pass on knowledge, rather than being seen as someone who “hasn’t gone into uniform yet”.
[quote=“MattB” post=14261][quote=“steve679” post=14257]why do i say this?
a Civilian, ATC CI or genuine “off the street” civlian, will be referred to as a “sir” or “ma’am” and they are catered for and accomodated in the WO & SNCOs mess - the only people who get that treatment are WOs…QED[/quote]
This does seem a little unfair to sergeants and flight sergeants, who have to undergo a selection process to get where they are. I certainly wouldn’t see a CI as being higher in rank or status than a sergeant.
[/quote]
sorry i mis-explained myself.
equal in terms of respect, not neccessarily rank.
as i see it no “military” (uniformed) person can give an order to a Civilian (CI) other than the CO (or higher) anyway so where a CI sits in the rank structure is irrelevant as there simply is no authority over a Civilian.
in terms of respect however CI should be offered the same respect as WO just as they are in the RAF
however, and particularly from WSOs, they are not even treated as respectfully as Cadets at times, particularly on the subject of going into uniform
if i worked for BAE Systems, Marshalls, Martin Baker or other Military contractor/supplier as a civilian i would be offered the same respect as a WO but it wouldnt permit me to start ordering NCOs or Airmen about, in much the same way an SNCO (ATC) doesnt have the right to order an Cpl (RAF) or Airman around
[quote=“MattB” post=14246][quote=“angus” post=14230]i’m absolutely of the view that cadets should never, ever go from cadet to SNCO/VR(T) - i think they should have a minimum 6 months break, ideally a couple of years break, before returning as a CI. perhaps just changing the eligability criteria - no uniformed service before 24, and CI’s at 22.[/quote]If that had been the regime when I timed out as a cadet I’d have gone straight to the ACF or SCC, and the ATC would have lost yet another member of staff.
I really can’t see why people get hung up on the whole ‘never put ex-cadets directly into uniform’ thing. As I’ve posted many times before, I was very briefly a CI whilst awaiting my region board - strangely enough I was exactly the same person as I was after commissioning, I just wore slightly different clothes.[/quote]
Agree entirely. Doesn’t seem to have done me any harm going straight to VR(T).
Same here… I’m sure lots of people held the same opinion of me after commissioning than before…
Ahem.
[quote=“steve679” post=14267]as i see it no “military” (uniformed) person can give an order to a Civilian (CI) other than the CO (or higher) anyway so where a CI sits in the rank structure is irrelevant as there simply is no authority over a Civilian.
in terms of respect however CI should be offered the same respect as WO just as they are in the RAF
however, and particularly from WSOs, they are not even treated as respectfully as Cadets at times, particularly on the subject of going into uniform[/quote]
I think what is the CI’s biggest blessing is also it’s biggest curse - not being part of “the structure.”
In a structured organisation I can understand why some have difficulty “placing” CIs as part of that structure, it would make perception much less of an issue if they were all uniformed. But then you’d lose the ‘old bold subject matter expert’ CIs out there (although from a personal perspective I dont have any of those on my squadron, heyho!)
There is no easy answer, but like I said before, the whole ci v nco v officer and “sorting out” the various cadres is utter tosh. We need to make sure that we are recruiting/appointing the right people at ALL levels of and roles within this organisation.
Also as has been pointed out earlier, if people have issues, then raise them - at least whilst you’re in the organisation there is a certain amount that can be done (and heard), whereas once you’re out the chances of affecting change are slim.
Is it seriously possible to give an order to anyone in this organisation? That implies they really have no choice but to obey. In truth if I give an order to either a CI or a uniformed staff member they have two choices. Do it, or in effect leave! (lets not get into not doing it or complaining etc). I am sure a Sergeant ATC will walk just as fast as a CI if they had to do something they REALLY didn’t want to. Not so sure about VRT’s.
I think if we really look into this are CI’s committed less than someone who is in uniform? In many respects many long term CI’s are more committed. We all know one uniformed member of staff who left a few months into their uniform issue simply because they didn’t like their CO or posting or other peoples attitude to them once they were in uniform.
I also know CI’s who take time out, don’t get seen for months or even years then simply turn up at the door and get taken back with open arms. Unless you go through the right process from the start try doing that as a VRT or uniformed NCO!
As to having a probationary period, not sure. There’s enough hurdles into getting involved now and the main one is a lack of staff at the top of the Squadron really having an induction program for new staff. I realised a week or so ago when I got two new staff asking to commit we really don’t have an induction program to squeeze them into the organisation.
For new cadets we have induction booklets, offer them a buddy, ensure their hand is held from day one. Staff… “Follow that guy and watch what goes on”. Maybe this is a wake up call for us to develop a potential staff member induction program for our Squadrons along the lines of cadet induction. :!:
I don’t think it is, not even for VRT. If you have something to do at the same time that is family or work related, they can order all they like and it ain’t gonna happen. If they get snotty about it, you can regain 2 nights per week and umpteen weekends.
[quote=“briank” post=14287]As to having a probationary period, not sure. There’s enough hurdles into getting involved now and the main one is a lack of staff at the top of the Squadron really having an induction program for new staff. I realised a week or so ago when I got two new staff asking to commit we really don’t have an induction program to squeeze them into the organisation.
For new cadets we have induction booklets, offer them a buddy, ensure their hand is held from day one. Staff… “Follow that guy and watch what goes on”. Maybe this is a wake up call for us to develop a potential staff member induction program for our Squadrons along the lines of cadet induction. :!: [/quote]
New people coming into the organisation are overlooked and I think the application process needs to be massively simplified as currently. Whichever moron came up with the CI process of having an interview before they even get to fill out the forms, needs shooting, as getting a WSO to do it is nigh on impossible and it is pointless. As for probationary period, that should be as long as it takes to get their DBS clearance.
As soon as I get anyone new in I sit down with them and go through what people do (or are supposed to) and when they tick the DBS box, I try to get them out and about as much as possible, because this organisation is about more than the sqn.
We had something that could be used as an induction booklet, it was called ACP 42, the old Staff P2 book. Now you get ACP 1 and ACP 4 Ch4, which actually tell you nothing about the organisation.
I do like the notion about recruiting “suitable” people. In my mind recruiting means advertising, applying and having an interview process with selection for he i/v based on the application form. Being a voluntary organisation we get people turn up and go from there. Also when you recruit you are getting people in to do specific roles, we don’t do that in the ATC. If we get someone come along with skills and knowledge we grab them with both hands.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=14277]
There is no easy answer, but like I said before, the whole ci v nco v officer and “sorting out” the various cadres is utter tosh. We need to make sure that we are recruiting/appointing the right people at ALL levels of and roles within this organisation.
Also as has been pointed out earlier, if people have issues, then raise them - at least whilst you’re in the organisation there is a certain amount that can be done (and heard), whereas once you’re out the chances of affecting change are slim.[/quote]
My Bold. I think that this is key, if you have a CI who has the interest, commitment & desire to progress into uniform, the OC/WSO need to discuss the options with the CI for uniform, and encourage them for the role which would best suit them (not what best suits the Sqn/Wing) and if the CI wanted to go the other way then the reasoning would need to be explained. As the volunteer needs to understand.
A CI with a future desire for Command should not be made an SNCO as the wing is low on NCOs atm, but in a few years you can be commissioned, becasue the SNCO Cadre is NOT for those not ready/good enough for VRT