Always had strange ways in the RN, but it was/is thought to be one of the mist dangerous team sports in the world.
1 Like
We do field gun displays all the time.
It’s the category of activity under Misc or PIPE i use when none of the suggested activities fit.
1 Like
If you NSP it first it’s a bit less dangerous.
1 Like
A long while ago I met a guy in his 60s who was a ex Fleet Clearence Diver who said he failed to get in the team as he couldn’t do the required number of sit ups with a 10 lb weight on his chest in a given time. Put him in swimming pool and he was liek a shark in the water, so fast and so comfortable.
They’re all mad I tell you.
1 Like
Topic
Consider the IACE top a good example.
A dark blue body, with contrast panels (side bits) in light blue with white piping
Looks cheap and well yuk.
There’s a chap who makes ‘cadet field guns’ which are a CCF RN approved activity. The gun barrel is wood with an aluminium cover, so it’s much lighter than the real thing. We have two and use them as a tri-service house competition activity - it’s an excellent teamwork and fitness task.
While you can still trap fingers, run over toes etc., there aren’t the back problems, or broken bones if you drop it. Only downside is, they are hand made and cost around £2.5k each…
PM me if you want more info. Unfortunately as they are seen as a matelot activity I guess wing/region wouldn’t pay for them and squadrons wouldn’t be able to afford!
1 Like
I don’t think you understood my joke! We have a drop down menu of things which fall under Public Events, the list is pretty poor and doesn’t cover half of what we do, so because I have to select one, I select the funniest one.
yours for £10 via the RIAT merchandise shop…
these shirts have been standard for IACE to wear casually for a good couple of years…
Keep in mind that the whole reason No 3A has appeared in our dress regulations is because the RAF are including it in theirs to ratify the long-standing practice of wearing Branded polo shirts with No 3.
The Careers teams, Motivational Outreach Teams, STEM teams, &c have been doing it for a long time and now there’s an official regulation for it.
We have merely followed suit.
I think it’s a sensible move. There are definitely occasions when we work local events in No 3, where No 3A would be preferable.
The old “but it’s private purchase so they can’t tell us what to buy” argument is as invalid here as it is when applied to combats.
It’s perfectly simple - nobody is forcing individuals nor Squadrons to go out and buy approved shirts. If Squadrons want to wear No 3A then they will wear it in accordance with the regs. It is a mode of uniform after all.
What about those Squadrons which have their own “Sqn Brand” and colours which do not meet the regulations? Tough.
Squadrons do not operate their own brands. We all come under one brand, whether people like it or not.
By all means, have something “local” for civilian wear or sports kit if desired, but when wearing a uniform one should expect to conform to the standard set across the whole organisation.
We wouldn’t expect a Squadron to decide that the blue uniforms don’t fit their “Sqn brand” and thus to be permitted to wear other colours.
Not as simple as that though is it? We’ve worn what was effectively No3a for at least 10 years because it’s more practical and suitable for some of the events we do with fundraising in particular.
We bought and invested in t shirts and jumpers, wording and badges. We paid for that before someone, somewhere, got a bee in their bonnet and tried to force rules on us.
I’m not going to follow it because it’s ridiculous, it doesn’t take into account that we’ve already paid a considerable some of money to do so and we did so in good faith. A lack of foresight and planning on the part of some warrant officer somewhere doesn’t constitute a problem for me.
8 Likes
Well, you know… Hard luck.
If it’s been worn as a totally unauthorised form of uniform for 10 years and now one discovers that one’s previous purchases don’t comply with the now-authorised form that is unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.
What a great attitude to have. I’m sure you’re invited to all the parties 
.
I look forward to the first jumped up warrant officer to try and question me or my cadets on it.
Well, frankly, there is a set pattern for a mode of uniform. That in itself shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
In this case the pattern is that shirts should be either light or dark blue. Given that we are the RAF Air Cadets and our brand has a defined colour pallete I think that’s a pretty reasonable limit to impose on a uniform.
The fact that some units will now have unsuitable shirts is, as I say, unfortunate but is just one of those things.
Let’s suppose a WO does pull you up on it… They are well within their rights to do so whether you agree with it or not. Let’s consider an alternative… What if your OC Wg pulls you up on it? What then. Will you give them the same treatment as you would to this hypothetical “jumped up WO”?
Glasgow kiss and sleep with his wife.
I don’t have a problem with there being a set pattern for something that is worn with, and as, uniform - I do however have a problem with HQAC being well aware that, because there was no policy or guidance, units have been off doing their own thing for decades and HQAC then just lobbing in a new policy with immediate effect without any warning or transition period and expecting everyone to be able to pop down to the magic money tree and withdraw 40 new, custom embroidered polo shirts…
So, easiest way around it is to say that the regulation will come into effect in a year.
3 Likes
Just wear civvies instead, with a nice squadron-branded top,
1 Like
In this case though, HQAC are merely following the RAF lead in implementing the policy. I’d wager that the pattern is a direct pull from AP 1358 with “RAFAC” replaced where required.
Any leeway in the application of such policy would have to be approved by the Dress & Clothing Policy Committee, surely?
I don’t doubt that many units have been doing their own thing in this regard for years, but it was never an authorised mode of uniform. If one does something which one knows to be unauthorised then one really can’t try to take the moral high ground when one is called out on it. One merely has to take it on the chin.
What has really niggled me in this case is the arrogance of implying that a WO performing their role would receive a one-way conversation or some form of dressing down for raising an argument against something which the Officer knew to be totally unauthorised but which they chose to do anyway.
Considering that nobody is stipulating what Sqns do in civies - nobody is saying that annual camps can’t have orange souvenir shirts, or that Sqn hoodies can’t be black and yellow or whatever; it’s a limit on a uniform which will only be worn on a limited set of occasions - I feel as though some people are getting offended just for the sake of it.
Why do they feel they have too?
They choose not to follow RAF regulations about being able to march 12km in fighting order in a set time, or about bayonet practice, or proficiency with a 9mm pistol, so why - given the very different circumstances of supply between the two organisations - do they feel the need to copy the RAF’s regulations on this matter?
Surely it couldn’t be because they are morons who are so divorced from Sqn life that they don’t actually know that Sqn’s have been left to their own devices for years, or that there isn’t a money pot going begging to be emptied?
3 Likes
Obviously I couldn’t possibly guess the motives, though no doubt we could request the minutes of the meeting via FOI request (as appears to be the done thing these days 
)
But as I understand it, the RAF make the decisions in these uniform cases.