[quote=“MattB” post=14797]I’d certainly be in favour of binning the pins for anything other than No 1 and No 5, although I can’t see much point in changing the insignia themselves.
I think that the letters ATC or VRT embroidered in gold on a rank slide similar to the RAF Reg ones would work just nicely.
I can’t see any particular issue with writing the word CADET on a similar slide for cadets, but at the same time I can’t really see any particular advantage to doing so that would justify the cost either.[/quote]
Uniformity. If like the AAFC, everyone just had ‘ATC’ or ‘AIR CADETS’ written at the bottom of the rank slide inside a blue band for cadets and in a white band for staff then it ties everyone together much more neatly. Esprit de corps and all that, with easy ID to boot.
None of us are ‘too good’ but we have a historical and - my understanding is - legal precedent in that RAFVR(T) are commissioned for service with the ATC. As has been said many times on here, the RAFVR(T) are part of the ACO but not in it.
As my previous post said, ‘until such time as HM sanctions any particular change in commissioned status for the RAFVR(T)’ which means that if changes are sanctioned by the Monarch, then I’ll go with them.
I’ve always said that that is the way forward for all ACO staff. Sadly, those further up the food chain (Dyer et al) seem to disagree.
[quote=“MattB” post=14807]Uniformity isn’t necessarily a good thing though, as it’s generally a good thing to be able to tell cadets and staff apart!
I’d like it to be as easy as possible to tell the difference between a 19YO Cdt Sgt and a 20YO Sgt (ATC)…
[/quote]
Well in that case, you need some sort of identifier on the cadets so you can tell the older looking cadet sergeants apart from the younger looking RAF NCO aircrew and air traffic controllers.
I’m told regularly by Very Senior Officers that some sort of Cadet Commission will happen. Eventually. I fear the history of the RAFVR(T) will be thrown out, with the bathwater.
Yes… via CCFA ExCo, mostly, where we get briefings from Land, and from MOD RF&C Div. They seem determined to do it, for some reason.
Mind you they also tell me the Army is going to be ‘lead service’ for the CCF and that we are going to have a ‘single cadet MIS’. I think they’ve been reading DYER… It leads to madness, you know!
[quote=“tmmorris” post=15037]Yes… via CCFA ExCo, mostly, where we get briefings from Land, and from MOD RF&C Div. They seem determined to do it, for some reason.
Mind you they also tell me the Army is going to be ‘lead service’ for the CCF and that we are going to have a ‘single cadet MIS’. I think they’ve been reading DYER… It leads to madness, you know![/quote]
It is one of those ‘it ain’t broke…so don’t fix it’ situations that they are going to try and ‘fix’. :ohmy: That said we are praying for the singles cadet MIS!
I think from a safeguarding perspective having something that obviously states ‘Cadet’ when in MTP is needed to avoid confusion with service personnel. Whether it is relevant for Blue uniform with Brassards is open to debate.
[quote=“tmmorris” post=15037]Yes… via CCFA ExCo, mostly, where we get briefings from Land, and from MOD RF&C Div. They seem determined to do it, for some reason.
Mind you they also tell me the Army is going to be ‘lead service’ for the CCF and that we are going to have a ‘single cadet MIS’. I think they’ve been reading DYER… It leads to madness, you know![/quote]I may be missing something here, but I’m pretty sure that none of the people that you’ve listed will actually get any say in whether or not VRT officers stay VRT…
[quote=“MattB” post=15047]I’m pretty sure that none of the people that you’ve listed will actually get any say in whether or not VRT officers stay VRT…[/quote]I believe that decision rests with the Monarch, though I am sure that they would take advice on the matter.
In theory, but really it’s primarily going to be up to the Air Cadet council and the RAF - not the Army. No matter how much they think that they’re in charge!
No, but MOD are holding this line too and ultimately the Secretary of State may be ‘advised’ this is the way forward. As MOD RF&C cadets staff all seem to be ex-RN - remembering that CCF(RN) and SCC ‘officers’ are in fact appointed civilians - they may decide to go down the same route.
Eh? Who said the Army had authority over your commissions?[/quote]Most of TMMorris’ list are Army types…
The reference to the Army thinking that they’re in charge relates more to previous “tri-service” things, such as the red book that they seem to think that all ATC staff are supposed to carry.
[quote=“MattB” post=15071]
The reference to the Army thinking that they’re in charge relates more to previous “tri-service” things, such as the red book that they seem to think that all ATC staff are supposed to carry.[/quote]
To be fair, the red book is very useful. Not the content (I only use that to pass the red book test), but the cover. It holds small snippets of manuals that I have printed out to prove my point when people try to argue the toss about how certain things are done.
Might be worth explaining for those who haven’t come across them before that we are taking about Reserve Forces and Cadets division, Ministry of Defence, i.e. civil servants. At the moment they all seem to be ex-RN, though there’s no obvious reason for this.
As such, they will be preparing advice for the Minister, and they are genuinely tri-service. My concern is that they seem to like the SCC model, with ‘appointed’ officers and the MSSC in charge, rather than the ‘real’ VR(T) or TA list B commissions.
[quote]tmmorriss wrote:
they seem to like the SCC model, with ‘appointed’ officers and the MSSC in charge, rather than the ‘real’ VR(T) or TA list B commissions. [/quote]
DYER specifically recommends that the ACF and ATC move to the SCC model - i.e. “arms length” with “grant in aid” funding arrangements.
[quote]mattb wrote:
I may be missing something here, but I’m pretty sure that none of the people that you’ve listed will actually get any say in whether or not VRT officers stay VRT[/quote]
This is the issue…
[quote]incubus wrote:
I believe that decision rests with the Monarch, though I am sure that they would take advice on the matter[/quote].
Correct - since the ATC (forget the “ACO”) is governed by the Royal Warrant. The CCF, ACF, and SCC are not governed by Royal Warrant.
The Royal Warrant specifically states that Officers for service with the ATC (note - again - not, “ATC Officers”) are to be commissioned into the Training branch of “Our Air Force Volunteer Reserve”.
The decision to introduce a tri-service Cadet Commission cannot be taken be MOD …the ATC is governed by the Royal Warrant, and any changes to its terms/conditions will require Royal Assent. As incubus says, no doubt HM would take advice (but in the case of a Royal Warrant she is not constitutionally bound to accept it), but she would be being asked to change a fundamental condition of a Royal Warrant enacted by her Father (His Late Majesty KGVI) …and the individual who is undoubtedly her main source of advice is the Air Commodore in Chief of the ATC
MOD could easily however dictate that the ACF and CCF(A) move to Cadet Commissions, and the decision as to whether or not to the SCC would come on board (pardon the pun) would be for the MSSC (since they are not controlled by the MOD) …genuinely unsure about CCF(RN) and CCF(RAF) - the CCF(RAF) AFAIK is not subject to the conditions of the ATC Royal Warrant.
