VR(T) Commission Change

Yes, but they’ll need to do something for HQ staff (CCF branch have already been exempted from wearing VRT pins though I don’t really agree with the reasons), and pilots (AEF and VGS) will need to be military if they continue to fly military aircraft. VRT seems the obvious place to keep these people.

So we are going to end up with a two tier system for the volunteers in the ATC. The two winged master race in the VGS will remain VRT, many who do extra duties with either sqn or VGS depending where they are attached to. And Sqn officers who are going to be in the new cadet commission. Currently all have the same commission. This is going to cause issues.

So if I join a VGS i get to keep my original commission. Very fair I am sure.

Seems like the SOP is in operation.

Why because you fly a military aircraft do you need to be in the military? How did CGIs get on? What’s to stop VGS and AEF types as VRT complaining to The Palace, which according to some is why this change is happening?

We’ve had a 2 tier system for staff in the Corps for decades.

We need to look further than the supposed annoyance of The Palace at getting people writing to them about something that should have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned within the ATC. It would interesting to see this process of a change to a cadet commission in total from rationale for change to the end product and who exactly was behind it, ie the sponsor. With respect to the ATC, I would imagine that supposedly loads of people complain to The Palace, annoys our management as it highlights how poor they are at dealing with and resolving problems/complaints. As a result bringing it in house means their inefficiency at dealing with things is kept out of the public domain.

1 Like

If their intention was to be divisive and to widen gulfs even further then I think they have succeeded!
Do AEF/VGS staff need VRTs anyhow, I rarely see them wearing pins on No 1s, No 2s or No 5s. Accept that pins are considered FOD so not worn on flying clothing

How strange - only 3% plumped for VRT! IE the option which wasn’t given.
So, simplistically, if you offer people 2 choices are you surprised that very few pick option 3?
They can now turn round and say “only 3% expressed a preference to retain VRT”.

AEF pilots dont wear VRT pins due to FOD, however, if they were allowed to wear the embroidered VRT on their rank slides, I’m sure they would.

They dont wear them on their No1’s or 5’s as most of them are retired RAF officers and are entitled to wear their retired rank and uniform should they wish.

We have a couple of non-ex military pilots who wear their VRT pins on their 1’s and 5’s and are quite proud of it.

Grob Tutors are civil registered aircraft. There is currently dispensation for military and VRT officers to fly them. I’m not sure how the change will affect this current agreement though.

Vigilants are owned by HQAC and so are military registered aircraft.

Personally I think its all a faf and hasn’t been thought through very well. It annoys me when some junior officer gets shouted at by a senior officer or doesn’t get the answer they want so they put a service complaint in. This is where re-education is key. ATF should advise new officers that service complaints must only be used in the most extreme circumstances and that the reporting chain should be used for redress. NOT to put it in just because their Wing Commander says no you have to do this rather than this!! What is the world coming to? IIRC you do as your told in the military. You’re in a military organisation where, if you do something wrong, you’ll be educated otherwise. If you dont like it, use the reporting system or leave. No-one is forcing you to stay.

I think the whole ‘blame culture’ needs to change. Man up and get on with it if you’ve had a TELLING OFF and learn from it. Don’t cry in your soup and be a keyboard warrior writing to HQAC to complain.

Just my 2 pence worth.

and the first one goes…

FO Adj in our sector, decent woman and no pathetic ‘but i’m an Officer…’ saddo. like many she’s been rubbed up the wrong way too many times by incompetance and burdened by an ever growing paper mountain and her comment was simply that she’s 'had enough of being treated BADLY

early 30’s, professional, stood in as temp OC on two very rural Sqn’s, does camp. she’s been honking off for a while about the state of the ACO but still dragging the minibus out a 5am so the cadets can get to stuff. i wouldn’t have dropped dead of shock if she had decided not to extend but i’m pretty sure she’d have stayed on as a CI. not now though, she’s away after deciding that she felt the changes - and more particularly, HQAC’s less than impressive efforts to present and explain them - were a personal insult.

the conversation in the pub suggests that she may not be the last, the ‘insulting’ thing was definately a theme, more than i thought it would be, i’m not sure if i’d put money on any following her in resigning, but i’d say that around a third of the dozen VR(T) who were in the pub (which is all but one of the officers in my sector) had more or less decided that they would not extend their commissions but would probably remuster as CI’s, another third would probably stay and extend despite being very unhappy about the whole thing, and a third were completely ‘meh’.

I just feel that, HQAC could have handled this important change a lot better, if they had put out a brief statement at the beginning of this process via bader ,social media. Outlining the changes that are being discussed about viability of the present VRT commission with regular updates on the process.

this may have put a stop to a lot of the uncertainty, rumours etc that are flying around at present

1 Like

I don’t think this would have happened as it would have meant more questions than answers or answers they would be prepared to give us and as none of us are stupid and it may have meant people seeing the writing on the wall and considering their future role in the Corps.

That’s what I suspected. There’s already a two tier VR (T): VGS and ACO. If VGS staff get to keep their VR (T) commissions while ACO people are switched to pretend commissions, then the superiority of VGS staff will become clearer. Perhaps HQAC should consider raising the bar for VR (T) selection rather than dumbing the entire system down.

What, raise the bar HIGHER than the RAF entry? It’s currently the same as the RAF entry in terms of scope, adapted obviously for our work environment. Changing the selection process would not alter the issue this new commission is supposed to redress

I think the issue is generally around senior officers not having a clue, not having any integrity and asking junior officers to do things they shouldn’t.

What they miss out at the initial application stage, initial board, OASC and IOC is accept whatever turd fest comes your way and don’t complain and if you do don’t expect a result or outcome that is favourable to you.
If they had made this absolutely clear then all of this may have been avoided. However this is all part of a bigger change to the cadet forces and they’ve had to start somewhere. In the next few years I can see more and more things changing structurally and organisationally, as we move to a consolidated cadet forces set up. If this was just about a few VRT complaining to the top, then it would have been fairly easy to change the TCoS and remove the right to redress to The Crown. What this happening highlights is how poor HQAC and intermediate stages are at dealing with issues and resolving them, and bringing it in house will mean their incompetence remains hidden.

How is there a two tier system? VGS have to comply with exactly the same rules as anyone else in the ACO. And are included in this change just the same as everyone else too!

How do you know there is a pilot in the room…:smirk::smirk:

Because they will tell you! BOOM!

1 Like

I am not so sure on that aspect, since all of the “final” options on the recent questionnaire v2 had “RAF” as part of the text on rank slides. Someone seems to be clinging onto the RAF’s coat-tails and not embracing service in the cadet forces / ACO / ATC

Does anyone know what the ‘V’ stands for in the option ‘RAFV’?

I’m assuming volunteer?

Interesting that anyone seems eligible to vote on this when presumably it only affects VRT?

As I understand it, Officers will still be separate from the ATC - does anyone know why this is?

Probably HQAC or they could just be ignoring text inputs for ATC.
Bringing all staff under one banner has to be the logical and most sensible way forward.