VR(T) Commission Change

From my understanding, the long term plans is to “rebrand” the uniform staff into one org/grouping. So SNCO/WO (ATC) Cadre would potentially bear the same letters as the officers - only difference obviously is the commission aspect.

1 Like

Or the ongoing attempt to force the RAF Air Cadets crap on us rather than ATC has influenced the options.

If we continue to refer to Officers as RAF something or other, with separate selection processes and not ATC like the rest of the staff AND one selection process, then there is and will be a two-tier system.
Overall there is nothing special about Officers over SNCOs or CIs, except the amount of nonsense they have to deal with. I’ve been all three in my time and apart from the uniform and then different badges, I can’t see the join which makes one better than the other or better placed to do different things. The doing different things just panders to a structure and system that is largely alien and meaningless to us, to appease someone in the armed forces, it does nothing to enhance the cadet experience.

this v2 survey, where is it we haven’t had notice (
North)

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LKGXGXV
However, I can’t find out how I got the link initially. It was on Friday 02/12/16 I think.

Insignia with RAF in the title received the most votes, with over 2698 votes (69%)
Consequently, the various RAF titled options have been produced for you to consider in the next survey.

I am hoping that the person running these surveys is leading people down a blind alley and that this will be overridden before it becomes official policy.

Virtual? :smiley::smiley::smiley:

Is this widespread a feeling within the ACO?

The only time I’ve ever been aware of an ATC V’s VR(T) divide is when our Wing Warrant Officer tried to set up a private facebook group for SNCOs only. I’m sure he had the best of intentions, but for some reason it had the WSOs panicking, and the WWO was “advised” to add a couple of WSOs for “oversight”.

I don’t really have an issue with the change in status. I can’t see how it will change how I do my job on the squadron, on camp, or anywhere else. Aside from ill thought out MOD requirements regarding civilians and weapons movements, I can’t think of any other time that being in the “RAF Reserve” has ever been more of a benefit that being a member of the ATC. In fact, my WO has blagged more visits, and equipment from the RAF than I ever could!

BUT… for as long as I’ve been an officer, it’s been drilled into us officers that we’re part of the RAF, not ATC. Every ATF course I’ve been on reinforced that fact, and that we’re subject to QR’s, Court-marshall, etc etc. I’ve been told by various senior officers that the ATC isn’t a hobby, it’s voluntary service in the RAF Reserve, second career (unpaid), and that we’re the new public face for the RAF (Although mostly these comments were met with :rolleyes: from the officers present, most of whom got that we were signing up to run a cadet squadron, not Reserve RAF!).

It’s hardly surprising that people are feeling aggrieved by the change in commission, and I think that the lack of communication from HQAC (again!) has added fuel to the fire.

I have just received this recent survey link in my inboxes.
Does this mean a “Hello, Gp Capt Leeming” is in order? :wink:

1 Like

I can’t seem to load any pictures on it. But then I could when I voted before on my phone rather than my PC. Strange.

That was referring to the mention of a two tier system of VGS Vs ACO general VR(T)

I emailed to day it is the intend is to have one branding for Officers and SNCO staff and that clearly makes sense. I myself chose RAF V I think others are to long ie RAF CFAV etc and it allows for the V that is currently in the Officers Title to remain.

From an email I received today from on night it was stated that ALL VR(T) officers will be moving over including this on VGS, AEF and Civil Servants employed at HQ’s.

So with this in mind their is still no reason why we with our new CF Commission couldn’t continue to wear VRT gilt insignia as like the RNVR Wavy Navy it will be a defunct insignia.

1 Like

looking at some of the options they have picked…
How big do they think our epaulettes are for these names?

Or our lapels!

I think it’s the typical civil service trick to make sure we pick the one they want.

Well If RAFV was chosen, surely they’d simply go for the “V” lapels?

1 Like

Re: The comparison between the wavy navy rank insignia and the vr(t)/vrt pins.

Has anyone asked a member of the RAAF, Army reserves or RNR/RMR how they feel about the usage of ‘volunteer reserve’ by cadet instructors (who have no call up liability, and at the drop of a hat can pack up and go home, with no legal penalty).

Personally, I think the fact that instructors don’t call it a day when the going gets rough, makes them worthy of letters after their name (under a different umbrella).

But can nobody see how people referring to themselves as volunteer reserve might be seen as insensitive at best, and insulting at worst by people who actually put themselves in harms way?

The removal of the ‘volunteer reserve’ label could be part of rebranding by the auxilliaries, just like TA is now army reserves.

Before you point it out, I do understand and wish that our respect/homage to the RAFVR could continue in the same which has worked for years. But this could be part of recruitment/retention efforts for actual volunteer reserves, and a possible informal bonus is getting rid of a few walts…

I also think the wavy navy rank braid, doesn’t in itself suggest that the wearer is actually a member of DEPLOYABLE volunteer reserves, but actually looks to separate the two.

Why would we need to ask the Royal Australian Air Force?
I think you meant the RAuxAF :wink:

What about UAS and DTUS (if that’s still going?) - They are both in the RAFVR, with no call up liability…

The RAF has re-branded to Regular and Reserves. No mention of Volunteer Reserve. and searching “Volunteer” on the RAF Website comes up with no hits on the RAuxAF?

What you’re forgetting is that those people are still going to wear a uniform.

Quite frankly I couldn’t care less what the RAuxAF, army reserve or RNR think. It has sod all to do with them and hasn’t been an issue for 75 years.

Who cares that we don’t have a call out liability?

This change hasn’t been designed to “recognise the value adult volunteers bring”. It hasn’t been designed to get rid of walts. It has been designed to make it easier to administer complaints from staff, and that is literally the only benefit.

This will bring no benefit to cadets. If anything, if we start getting problems with ammo and “non-service personnel”, or pilots no longer subject to the Armed forces act stopping flying, it will have an adverse effect.

It’s not like we have a crisis in the organisation that means we’re losing 10% of our cadets numbers that deserves attention. It’s not like morale in the adult volunteer strength is already critically low. It’s not like it’s becoming harder and harder to actually see the point in doing what we do.

This change, fundamentally, is for bean counters. It will have no positive impact at local level, and even if the change was forced on the ACO by the MOD, HQAC have not communicated at all well at any stage of it. They have shown a complete lack of understanding about who we are, why we do what we do and what motivates us.

I, for one, have had enough.

11 Likes

Yes, but the AEF operation would probably require an AOC, and they don’t have one. So it is still a military operation.