Also this:
Almost as if they are expecting someone important to knock off at some point soon.
[quote=“MattB” post=24655]Nonetheless, it was previously allowed - if they didn’t mean to allow it then it’s not my problem![/quote] hear you, but the rules are no brown boots with cs95…
Does anyone have a copy of “(20150202-RAF_Regt_Dress_and_Badging_PCCU-V2-O dated 02Feb15”
Reference page 50, para 0228 d.
I notice the Cadet TRF is still a “viking” rather than “tutor” aircraft…
any logic in the creases for CS95 DPM yet nothing in MTP PCS??
Was searching Sharepoint for gliding & the link for AP1358C was included in the results! :blink:
[quote=“steve679” post=24665]I notice the Cadet TRF is still a “viking” rather than “tutor” aircraft…
any logic in the creases for CS95 DPM yet nothing in MTP PCS??[/quote]think it just follows the parent service
Creasing CS95 is easy. Creasing PCS is a PITA
20150202-RAF_Regt_Dress_and_Badging_PCCU-V2-O dated 02Feb15"
Reference page 50, para 0228 d.? what does it say?
As the RAF Regimemt mudguard has been accepted as a qualification, I wonder if this latest ‘rule’ that it can only be worn by those who achieved SNCO rank, is the result of some over-zealous tinkering by ATC WO’s?
I’ve searched for this ‘policy letter’ and can’t seem to find it anywhere on sharepoint.
Can’t see many ex-rocks paying too much attention to it anyway.
It does reference a Feb 15 policy from CG Regiment, which may well have created the SNCO rule - it’d put it vaguely in line with the officer policy that was put in place when the mudguards-as-qual-badge rule first came out.
It does seem a little odd to me however, as I don’t think that there’s any equivalent rule for para wings or commando dagger (indeed AFAIK a soldier/marine/airman of any rank who’s earned them can continue to wear them even if commissioned - is that correct?)
There had been talk of removing the permission completely so this is a very watered-down change.
So where’s the reference document then? I haven’t seen it and its not on SharePoint. Was it only sent to the favoured few? It’s either a qualification or its not and CG’s shouldn’t be involving themselves and undermining the decisions of their predecessors.
The officer\SNCO(ATC) divide is correct. BGC was\is hard enough but the JROC’s had it a lot worse than we did. However, a Regt SNCO has done exactly the same BG course as someone who left as a SAC, the only difference being that NCO’s would have done FT1(G) (SAC-Cpl) and FT2(G) (Cpl-Sgt) courses (prior to the introduction of LCpl’s within the Regiment).
The mudguard is only awarded for successful completion of the BGC so rank held in the ATC should not define who is and who isn’t entitled to wear them.
You are indeed correct, MattB.
Just had a copy of the reference document sent to me.
To me, the CG is coming over all precious about the wearing of the mudguards. What happens when a new CG comes into post? Will he send out another directive countermanding this one because he may feel differently?
They should have left well enough alone and I stand by the last sentence in my response to Incubus.
Are you able to share?
Funny, because it always seemed to me to be the previous CG who was coming over all precious about them. Reversing that would simply be righting a wrong.
Funny, because it always seemed to me to be the previous CG who was coming over all precious about them[/quote]
How so?
He gave permission for all ex-Regiment who had gone SNCO(ATC) to wear them. The current CG is limiting it to those who had achieved SNCO rank in the Regiment. Ergo, precious.
Are you able to share?[/quote]
PM sent.
Are you able to share?[/quote]
PM sent.[/quote]Me too please?
PM also inbound.