Eh? Who said the Army had authority over your commissions?
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. 
P.S. JSP 535 comes from MOD RF&C, not “Army”.
Same thing!
Whilst RFCA provide our accomodation, etc - they’re not in our chain of command! The C in RFCA basically means ‘Army Cadets’.
[quote=“MattB” post=15080]Same thing!
Whilst RFCA provide our accomodation, etc - they’re not in our chain of command! The C in RFCA basically means ‘Army Cadets’.[/quote]
Best write a letter to complain then (though I should point out that RF&C is not the same as your regional RFCA).
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.
Cheers
BTI