A question that I would like opinions on!
We have since 1941 been called the Air Training Corps - ATC
We have recently had a new logo given to us Royal Air Force - Air Cadets.
I can find very little reference to “ATC” on the national website.
I cannot recall being given any instruction on “Naming or Re-naming” other than these new logos being issued
So
Who are we?
Does it matter?
And what is our actual name?
I think it was so that we include our school based cousins as well. Having “The ATC and CCF(RAF)” is a bit wordy, whereas the ACO which encompasses all is more useful from an outsider’s point of view.
Of course, the addition of RAF ties us that little bit closer to our parent organisation, which will no doubt come in handy for a) people’s understanding of what we are and b) when the next cuts come…
Indeed.
Remember that there is no national ATC website!
The Air Cadet Organisation (ACO) is part of the RAF and hence has been brought into line with the RAF corporate branding, to assist our identity.
The ACO consists of the Air Training Corps & Combined Cadet Force (RAF Section). HQAC is the top of the ACO, but also the bottem as from there the ATC is spilt into regions & CCF(RAF Section) have there TEST areas.
ATC Cadets wear the ATC cap badge, whilst CCF cadets wear the RAF cap badge, it depends whcih group you are a part as to whether your a ATC Cadet or RAF Cadet, but your part of the ACO regardless of which group you are a member of. Hence to be more inclusive of our CCF cousins, we are now commonly referred to as the ACO by the top of the chain.
I think the new branding makes clear that we are linked with the RAF, if this is a benefit to recruiting or not I couldn’t say, but i’m sure it could make us be seen as more of a recruiting agency that Air Training Corps ever did.
I’ve always seen it that Air Cadets sounds less ‘pompous’ and trips off the tongue easier than Air Training Corps.
That said I do think that ATC has a better more formal ring than Air Cadets, which is a bit like dumbing down.
I’m not overly convinced about the corporate RAF branding, as it could have a massive negative for the organisation in future defence reviews, ie we just get swept up under ‘training’ and get chopped.
The ACO as moniker would work better IMO if there was real co-operation / integration / sharing where you have CCF in the same town as ATC units. But it seems they are like family members from different part of the same town, who begrudingly acknowledge the other exists. I’d liken it to the relationship between Hyacinth Bucket and her sisters, you can decide which is CCF and which is ATC.
true, but i do think the ACO is going to have to sort out the fact that it has two organisations that do the same things, often in the same place, but are called different things, wear different capbadges and require two admin/command/funding streams.
the word ‘daft’ doesn’t come into it.
while i have issues with the ACO as a naked recruitment tool, and infact i think that all the cadet forces should be merged with their costs paid by the government depts that most benefit from the existance of the CF’s - Health, Home Office, DWP - rather than by the armed forces, in a future where money is tighter, disconnect between the Armed Services and the publc is greater (because so few people will know anyone in the forces, and the number of bases/garrisons is much reduced), having the ACO/ATC branded and explicitly named as the RAF Cadets is only going to make it easier to scrounge from the RAF, and indeed the Army.
its not ideal, but what matters is effect - if rebranding is the difference between being able to beg/borrow/steal resources and not being able to, err… ‘grasp opportunities’, then its the right thing to do, regardless of history or squeamishness.
^ pretty much agree with GHE2.
Its odd though - I’m sure we’ve had similar threads in the dim and distant past (probably “The Next Generation” era…?) where I think the membership got more upset at the virtual loss of the “Air Training Corps” including the crest, etc. Has that watering down of the brand made it more acceptable for us to be called Air Cadets or RAF Cadets?
if i was being charitable i’d suggest that neither RAF Cadets or Air Cadets is anything like as bone as ‘the next generation’, and although Air Cadets is much less formal, and much more ‘youth clubby’ than RAF Cadets, it not that bad.
if i were being cynical i might think that given the quality of leadership and general PR that the ACO has been, err… ‘blessed with’ over the last decade or so, people are just relieved the ACO hasn’t been christened the ‘Jimmy Savile Young’uns’…
I do think the new rebranding looks good, it does identify us with our “Parent” body.
I would just like a clear decision or direction being given to us ( wishful thinking I know! ). I still refer to my Sqn as ATC, a close local one now calls themselves RAF Cadets
So we have ATC and CCF and RAF cadets and Air Cadets - not exactly clear for the public or prospective new recruits
true, but i do think the ACO is going to have to sort out the fact that it has two organisations that do the same things, often in the same place, but are called different things, wear different capbadges and require two admin/command/funding streams.
the word ‘daft’ doesn’t come into it.
[/quote]
Why would we have to sort this out? This has been the state of play for around 64 years.
[quote=“stevenhawkingstennisracquet” post=2001]
Why would we have to sort this out? This has been the state of play for around 64 years.[/quote]
on the one hand:
“just because we’ve always done it that way doesn’t mean it is the best way of doing it.”
on the other
"if it isn’t broken don’t fix it"
is it broken? no, but it certainly isnt running at best efficiency…
[quote=“397k” post=1514]We have recently had a new logo given to us Royal Air Force - Air Cadets…
I cannot recall being given any instruction on “Naming or Re-naming” other than these new logos being issued[/quote]
Don’t forget though that the “Air Cadets” name is not a new thing. It’s been around a lot longer than the current logo.
We are still the Air Training Corps. Staff are appointed to serve with the ATC, cadets are enrolled into the ATC.
“Royal Air Force Air Cadets” is just a brand exercise.
Like “Disneyland Paris”. How many people reaise that the company is actually called “Euro Disney Associés S.C.A.”?
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=2017]
We are still the Air Training Corps. Staff are appointed to serve with the ATC, cadets are enrolled into the ATC.
“Royal Air Force Air Cadets” is just a brand exercise.
Like “Disneyland Paris”. How many people reaise that the company is actually called “Euro Disney Associés S.C.A.”?[/quote]
How many people care?
I think that’s what WDI was getting at…
I think that’s what WDI was getting at…[/quote]
ahh my bad, sorry.
The CCF and ATC are rather different in their set-up and chain of command, so it is not quite as simple as “sorting it out”.
I am the Section Commander of our CCF’s RAF section. My superior is the Contingent Commander, who is then responsible to the Head. HQ Air Cadets don’t feature directly.
Also, RAF sections tend to do training with their Army and Navy sections - they have far more interaction with these than they do with the ATC. So why should CCF(RAF) be more closely aligned with the ATC? That would take us away from the Army and Navy sections in our contingents.
In fact (with tongue firmly in cheek), the CCF has more cadets overall, so maybe the ATC should adapt to follow the CCF. 
Here in Australia, it used to be called the ATC too but now its AAFC (Australian Air Force Cadets).
An excellent point from wd11 and our cousins in Canada are the Royal Canadian Air Cadets! So how come as the premier and original Air Cadet Organisation we (and by that I mean the ATC) don’t have a Royal prefix? I’m sure Wilf San will explain the legalities behind it!
The RAF is starting to pull the ACO into the parent Service ‘fold’ for many things and we always hear our senior leadership stating that we are most definitely part of the RAF, so why not call us something that focusses attention on what we really are? After all, most of the public understand RAF Cadets better than Air Training Corps. A 75th Birthday present from the RAF to us perhaps?
What orh197 said - HQAC are NOT the CoC for CCF(RAF) sections. They are a ‘dotted’ line on the org chart, which everyone hates as it is unclear what to do in the event of a conflict.
An (ex-regular RAF) colleague of mine recounts when he was a JEngO and OC Eng tried to issue orders over the phone (OC Eng having a similar dotted line to sqn EngOs)… he declined to comply and stated he would obey orders from his OC only. This led to OC Eng’s car screaming to a halt in the sqn car park, followed by a friendly chat over coffee after which the whole thing was straightened out. He uses this as an example of how face-to-face conversations can resolve things much better than barked orders over the phone, though I usually use it as an example of the sort of thing that stopped him making substantive Sqn Ldr in time to stay in the RAF after his 16/38 point. He’s no more reasonable now…
T
Royal Air Cadets = RAC = Royal Armoured Corps
Same reason that despite being a Royal Corps the AAC is still known as that