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.
it is difficult to have the moral high ground on AP1358C when so many other regs are equally ignored.
At a previous unit we had a new building, but on the same compound. the blue prints were shared and i questioned this with the Squadron Chairman and OC as they simply didn’t comply with the minimums we should expect on square ft footprint, rooms, car park spaces and then with the equipment provided by our parent station, nothing major, i am talking tables and chairs.
the answer was “unlikely to happen at best” - If HQAC can’t follow their own policy based on cost, what justification is there for them (be that HQAC, Region, Wing or “jumped up” WO) to claim a Unit should pay through the nose for a piece of kit which isn’t required??
because if there argument is “because it says so in AP1358c” i shall laugh in the same derogatory tone as i got when questioning what a new build should look like…
2 Likes
We are slaves to the RAF Dress Committee, who seem to take little account that our needs are realistically very different from those of the regular RAF. We are an afterthought.
Sure, there is some leeway but that seems to be reactive: the process appears to be copy it verbatim, panic that it doesn’t work, then eventually have it re-worked in a sensible manner. What should happen at the very least is that we see the change, then adopt a variant that adheres to the principle but which we actually have a hope of following.
2 Likes
It was partly my point to say that nobody is doing that.
As you say, it’s not required and nobody is forcing Squadrons to purchase shirts compatible with No 3A. If Sqns want to buy new shirts then, arguably, there is a logic to following the pattern so that they might be multi-use, bt if Sqns don’t want to wear 3A no one currently is, nor should in the future be forcing them to spend out to do so.
Those squadrons who already possess shirts which are not compatible are simply going to have to accept that they cannot be worn as uniform.
Should not. But will.
1 Like
Is someone from the RAF Dress Committee what a sad bunch they sound, really going to get that bent of shape about *** Sqn ATC doing car parking or similar in a privately acquired with non-public funds polo/t-shirt?
If they are they need to get a grip on reality and likewise the numpties in the Air Cadets who get far too excited about this sort of thing.
For what it is worth, we do community evens in working blue as I got fed up with continually being referred to as Army Cadets.
This ^^
As has been said, HQRAFAC and those responsible for 1358C, should have used their common dog and gave this whole thing deeper thought. Yes, implement it by all means but make it subject to a transition period. That avoids most issues and gives individual units time to allocate funds\replace old kit when worn-out etc.
I feel that half the problem lies with those in FTRS posts. They are still in ‘Regular RAF’ mode and have very little idea about what goes on at Sqn level or how cash-strapped some units are. I was like that once, as wdimagineer2b can no doubt attest…
It’s the old saying; ‘pi$$ poor planning on your part, doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine’.
6 Likes
In fairness, we can also recall a good example of the type of “jumped up WO” who even I, as a fellow WO, would have a gripe with 
1 Like
I can only think of two people who fit the bill and one of them has a surname that sounds like a letter of the alphabet!
1 Like
Phew!
Wait, that leaves another…
wdimagineer2b knows who I’m on about
Ultimately, for the last few years we in the ACO/RAFAC have followed the lead of the RAF in wearing DPM/MTP with branded tops - most people would agree fairly legitimately.
The RAF have decided to tighten up the regulations and we’re following suit which is perfectly fair enough, except that the RAF have a big budget to just swap out any kit that doesn’t meet their new spec - we don’t.
The simple fact is this - the advantage in terms of corporate branding for the organisation is far, far, far smaller than the significant cost to units and as such HQAC shoulf have been pragmatic about it. As long as there’s nothing particularly hideous out there than I can’t see what would be wrong with allowing existing stock on a transitional basis.
3 Likes
There should of been a policy of from this point all orders for private purchase must follow this spec and accept that there willnprobably be a transition period of about 5 years. Even i who is an advocate for the dress regs could accept and deal with that.
4 Likes