So… they’re thinking of copying the AAFC rank slides? Didn’t I suggest that earlier in this thread?
Ah, the ignorance that only those (or their families) never directly targeted by a terrorist organisation possesses. :ohmy:
Whatevs.
[quote=“SVS” post=14767]Ah, the ignorance that only those (or their families) never directly targeted by a terrorist organisation possesses. :ohmy:
Whatevs.[/quote]
Strange, we must immediately ban all media communication across the armed forces, all TV interivews, all blogs and tweets, which identify names to faces, movements of people wearing uniform etc… oh wait, that’s just a sheet of names on a board.
[quote]blu3zirux wrote:
I’ve heard rumour of an interesting draft for consolidating the various different ranks and identifiers we have into a simpler rank slide only scheme that would see all ACO personal wearing the largish rank slides (like DMP/MTP ones) on all modes of uniform. VRT and ATC would lose the pins and any other identifiers, cadets would loose their No 3 identifiers and staff cadet/staff probationary ranks and possibly cadet classification would be shown by various coloured bars under any rank.
I can’t remember the details at all, but it actually seemed quite sensible at the time. I’m told it was spied in Sam Badgers office[/quote]
No, no, and thrice, no!
To go down this route - in the case of Officers - would be entirely contrary to the history and tradition of the RAFVR(T). RAFVR(T) Officers are appointed to serve with the ATC or CCF(RAF), not in it.
The current VR(T) distinguishing badge was approved in 1947 (along with the general re-introduction of RAFVR distinguishing badges) and has served the Branch, and the Corps, well enough ever since:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%201810.html
WOs & SNCOs wear ATC distinguishing badges because they are appointed to serve in the ATC, not with it.
A “common” distinguishing badge would be incorrect, inappropriate, and unnecessary.
Cheers
BTI
Could this be a ‘back door’ to justifying a ‘cadet commission’ or just a rationalisation of rank slides? Either way, I’m with BTI.
As he reaffirms, my letter states I am commissioned into the RAFVR(T) for service with the ATC so I’m more than happy to continue wearing my current rank slides with distinguishing insignia until such time as HM sanctions any particular change in commissioned status for the RAFVR(T).
In short, ‘hoop’ and ‘poke’.
I’m not looking to start a fight, but the last couple of posts could be read as putting forward the view that VRT officers are ‘too good for the same type of insignia as everyone else’.
The AAFC model is pretty smart and I think would look a lot better than brass pins on working dress.
I’d be glad to see the back of the pins on No3. I’m sick of them catching on rifle slings.
Then in blues we’re expected to take them out for flying, put them back in the moment we step away…
Surely there’s a better system!?
I don’t see how this has become a “VR(T) serve WITH the ATC, not IN it” debate? Surely this is simply finding an alternative way to identify?
Besides, a common identifier will be the norm once we’re all VR(T) 
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=“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.
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=“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.
Very senior officers?
I didn’t realise we had any of those. Or did you mean senior officers who are old? :whistle:
Very senior officers?
I didn’t realise we had any of those. Or did you mean senior officers who are old? :whistle:[/quote]
I won’t speak for him, but I would imagine tmmorris is referring to people higher up the food chain than HQAC…
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.
Like the Air Cadets FI and TRF then?
(or brassard in blues)
[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!