AP1919 MIA

While discussing ACPs JSPs and APs in the RAFAC and how they control and administer all aspects of cadet and CFAV life. AP1919 is the enabling documents which sets out the Rules and Regulations of the Air Training Corps. In essence the documents which governs the ATC
As AP 1919 is the document that all other ACP have reference to and reference AP1919 and documents like ACP 20 should be read in conjunction with AP1919. The question was asked where does that leave us the CFAV and can we the CFAV be sure that the rules and regulations of the RAFAC are correct?

Mate, I’ve been on about this for months. I need it for a Lottery bid which is on hold until I can evidence our constitution - contained within AP1919. It was removed following the RAFAC/VRT fiasco - but hasn’t yet been reinstated.

RC(N) said it’s still with the legals. But that was about 6 months ago!!!

You wonder why it is with the legal branch so long, is there a realisation that the CFC is badly flawed?

MOD legal or RAF legal?

Speaking from personal experience, sometimes when I know the advice is going to be bad, I can just sort of avoid answering the question unless chased, you know, just to check the client really wants to know the answer…


To my knowledge, the last significant update was in 1992 and there has been a lot of change since then!

But … wait for it … One of the reasons it has been such an elusive document over the years is that it only ever existed as a paper document (photocopied). So my guess would be that part of the delay is that some poor sod is having to retype the whole thing into MS Word as part of the project …

Your knowledge is lacking. The 7th edition appeared electronically in around 2010 (it is dated 2009)

IIRC, “appeared” is accurate as it showed up on Sharepoint with no announcement or fanfare. There seems to have been amendments made in 2014/2015 but it subsequently vanished at around the time that the CFC debacle was happening.

Thank you for the update/correction - appreciated.

Apparently the RAFAC is not funded for a legal department. One Wing Chair seemed it think there was one.

‘The question was asked where does that leave us the CFAV and can we the CFAV be sure that the rules and regulations of the RAFAC are correct?’ - that does not appear to cover the whole story - a further question should be even if they are correct, are they applied correctly and fairly across the board?

However constitution wise there may have been a new version issued 2014/5 which has been tweaked since, there is nothing to indicate that it has been subject to legal vetting at any time since then.

And for a lottery bid, surely it is for the Trustees to make such application, because as an individual or a representative of Uniformed personnel you not have constitutional authority of a charity, you are not a legal entity because the RAFAC is not itself a legal entity.

You need to work closely with your Civcom, but if they were to wave the current purported constitution, they would also find it deficient in legal compliance - something which has already been flagged up on this forum, only to have it poo-pooed (touch of Colonel Melchett there) by those who claim to be more knowledgeable and who would rather believe the chain of command.

The Charity scene is changing and to access monies, will become harder and be dependent upon Charity Registration. In Northern Ireland several youth groups have been marked as ‘failed to register’ which means that technically they cannot exist as a Charity and that fate may soon befall several ATC units.

I’m doing it as our Trustees couldn’t work the website - let alone write a bid. They’ve deferred to an SME to put it all together. They will sign it off.

As for the Constitution being a problem for a lottery bid, evidence says not so. It definitely worked last year. And the year before. And the year before that.

1 Like

Go steady … there are serious legal problems in the current constitution such as the interference of Wing over trustees. Not trying to be a pain but the constitution has (unnecessarily) changed and you might find closer scrutiny makes things tough …

Good on yer sport - sound like without taking the bull by the horns yourself, you will nowhere. However the entire point is that Trustees are a legal entity, and it should be a concern that they are willing to sign their name to accept legal responsibility for someone else’s actions.

This is really showing the lack of professionalism in Charity Management within the RAFAC.I used to believe that standards to which we worked were way above that of the Scouts and Guides ( ie all other youth except Sea Cadets) but it is slowly descending into farce and that will impact eventually on Cadet activities.

A proper working Civcom will have wide community contacts and that can be of significant benefit to access all manner of support. However as will become apparent in the future, access to finding will be dependent upon having the correct structure, supported by a legally competent constitution.

It is 8 years since the Charities Act was implemented, so plenty of time to get things right, but up until last year there were conflicts if interest within the GPF, which has seen them addressed by appointment of three more Trustees. Up to that time the GP was managed 3:2 in favour of Trustees who were actually managing the RAFAC. So if the GPF constitution was initially flawed, the ‘expert’ input on the general constitution might also be flawed, especially where no-one has produced any documentation to provide legal input.

But as I said before, the question is: Does the organisation abide by all the various rules and regulations? The answer is evidently no, when an OC has to make his own grant application.

AP1919 is at the root of everything and there is evidence to show that Wing and Region are inclined to ignore it, which would otherwise cramp their style.

You have to be quite explicit as to what the money will be spent on and as the CWC will be the ones managing the spend and it will have been discussed prior to any application, to that end it doesn’t really matter who writes the application.
When it comes to the flannel you need to fill the forms up staff are better placed to do this.

Does anybody out there is ACC land have a copy of the last version of AP1919. that was issued? I am looking to back up a reference from an ACP and it is referring to 1919.

As the latest version AP1919 is still not been published, i would suppose and correct me if i am wrong but until the new version is published then the last version is the one we have to use.

I have the 7th edition dated Dec 2009. PM me an email address and I’ll send it over.
I’d be surprised if proved helpful though.

1 Like

Iv V7 the newest?

It is the newest I’ve seen. It was the first to appear (announced without fanfare) as an actual electronic document and not as paper pages seemingly spat out form a Banda copier!

I didn’t see anything after v7, then it disappeared. 1919A appeared around 8 years later!

I proposed that to RC(N). The response was (paraphrasing) yes - unless it’s not legally sound anymore…

Afaik it’s still with MOD Legals. And isnt near the top of their to do list.

One part which will be causing a headache for the MOD legal dept is the charitable element of CivComs.

Having spoken in the past to two representatives of the RAF legal department in the MOD, they seem to have a different take on this area than ATC-HQ thjrough ACP-11 and are well aware of the proper approaches having been involved in the charitable transition of the Sea Cadets.

Although AP1919 is a far more wide-ranging document than just that, it is just one area that could result in months/years of knots.

For example, the procedure for closing/transferring/amalgamating a squadron is totally wrong as it stands on the simple legal principal that it must be the squadron trustees - working with the staff, who administer and decide the actions on financial and non-MOD assets. As it stands, I recall there are processes for paying bills and returning surplus funds to ATC-HQ in such circumstances, all of which contradicts the personal liabilities of the CivCom.

1 Like

I wonder sometimes if CWCs should not register with the Charity Commission and report direct to the CC and divest themselves from HQAC completely. This if I am correct would mean the trustees would know exactly where they stand and on a plus side we could get proper concessions open to charities like grant applications which can prove difficult for squadrons and VAT exemption. The latter would be really useful.