Had a thought.
If we would not longer be VR(T), would we wear the RAF TRF on our No3 dress? Or… would we wear the Adult NCO version?
There are far more important things to be concerned about. What badges we might or might not wear is a diversion.
Oh I completely understand.
We can’t ignore the details just because some aspects are more important than others. Failure to address the whole scope of a situation will mean that we will end up implementing a shambles rather than a solution.
6 Likes
It’s Something else that would need to be clarified.
It’s probably not even been thought of because the whole lot hasn’t been thought through fully and all implications/ requirements not fully been identified never mind resolved
An email from my Wing HQ stated last week that designs for a new TRF were being drawn up. I assumed at the time of reading that this referred only to the Cadet TRF, but possibly this will encompass everyone (About time)
Quoted:
TRFs. Not available at present, as there is a delay on the issue of the new policy, but work has started on a new design for the ACO.
Surely the badging will be the biggest practical difference for most officers…
one wonders whether those drawing up the new TRF will seek to make it less bone out of consideration for the (former) VR(T) who will now have to wear it, or if they’ll look to make a point at the (former) VR(T)'s expence. the suspicion being of course that neither the woeful Cadet TRF nor the almost as bad SNCO (ATC) TRF would have got past the back-of-a-fag-packet stage of design had there been the slightest chance that any Officer would have to have worn them.
the new one should be a straight forward force identifier to be worn by all ranks - RAF colours with a device, or at an angle, or whatever, but it needs to be visible, it needs to be obvious, and it would be good if it at least appeared that the designer had seen what a TRF actually looks like…
I quite like the SNCO TRF, and I have to wear one. Thoroughly agree on the woeful cadet TRF.
I am almost certain that the new TRF will have no gliders or aircraft at all.
TRF:
Couldn’t be simpler.
1 Like
But what badge we wear on one form of dress makes no difference one way or the other.
The fact someone comes up with a simple survey to give us a say in how officers are termed or what insignia they wear, when no one in the volunteer side really knew this was coming out as it has done, displays a lack of integrity in the Officers running the Corps that defies belief. It’s a bit like asking the horse whether it wants to be glue or dog food after it’s been slaughtered.
Getting something through the process this went through to get to Royal Assessent doesn’t happen overnight, even if HM The Queen was getting annoyed over her morning tea and biccies at being constantly petitioned by disgruntled VR(T) as we’re led to believe has been going on, would make this happen any faster. Something should have been sent to all addresses saying this was going on, whether we would have had any input into what it looks like and processes involved is another thing, but we should have been advised. The issue of disgruntled staff in the organisation as a whole has only ever been seen by people leaving at sqn level and never properly addressed. Largely because it’s a volunteer organisation and as a result the senior management don’t care why people leave as long as they get to stay in an unrequired and overpaid job to boost their pensions.
You have to wonder if it was kept secret so that you didn’t get a backlash of people resigning commissions or leaving, which would have created chaos and may still happen and while some may say good riddance, if it happens on their squadron and say one or two officers leave and there’s no one to fill the slot, what happens then. An SNCO take over? Officer who has no interest moved in to fill the seat?? Fold the squadron? Get more miffed as they have to do more and leave themselves? The least that could happen is officers reverting to CIs. I can see the command structure of the Corps altering massively when this starts to kick in and people are asked to remuster as CF officers.
This is a military themed organisation, not a youth club. Do you think they asked the residents of various towns before they close military bases? We aren’t being sacked. We can still do what we did before. Why does everyone feel the need to “have a say” about changes which are largely not going to affect the way we operate?
Inflated sense of position perhaps?
You’re already CF Officers, you know that right?
Maybe worded badly, as per the commission type
Do the new commission changes also apply to remaining VGS and AEF staff? I know that 1 or 2 former Vigi instructors have transferred from VGS to AEF. Will the AEF accept CFC officers (aka civilians in uniform) flying their aircraft? My understanding is that CFCs won’t be subject to military law.
Surely a new SNCO RAFVR(T) would have been a better move for the ACO. Personally, I think SNCO RAFVR(T) would have been worth more to the ACO and individual staff member both in terms of status and links to the RAF than any CFC rank.
In my opinion CFCs will have about the same formal recognition in the RAF and wider military as a scout pack Akela.
So no real change then?
Ultimately, this entire issue is a sticking plaster over a broken leg. It might look great but the underlying problem isn’t going away.
This change is going to affect all 3 cadet forces so having some input as to how the appt happens, ie full on board process ie OASC / Westbury or local board and interview with senior officers one from each branch, or given we will all be of the same status as SNCOs have exactly the same process as they do and cut out the higher level involvement.
There has been a significant drop in our Wing of mature ie mid 30s plus going for a commission since the introduction of the OASC bit, where we used to have more mature candidates. So a chance to redress this via a revisit to the old system, might have been useful.
Leaving it to senior officers we will get a lash up.
And yet we have had a significant rise in applications which have resulted in successful appointments later on. I don’t see your point?
A number of older people have been discouraged by the OASC system and IMO these are more valuable in terms of work and life experience.
1 Like