CFAVs: Officers, WOs and SNCOs - alignments, significance, impacts?

Adult Staff Execs
1

I’m fully aware of the ‘VRT- Yes or No?’ semi-formal poll that was recently issued-out across the WO/SNCO cadre, and had heard anecdotally that the vast majority of respondents were keen to be part of the VR rather than the ATC.

Parking that aside for a moment, and, whilst also acknowledging the glaringly-obvious point that anything which improves the morale/retention/effectiveness of staff is clearly a good thing (all of which contributes to an improved Cadet experience), I’ve a few side-perspectives that perhaps deserve to be considered. Maybe these points have been discussed previously, and I’ve missed them.

  1. As I understand it, currently RAFVR(T) Officers cannot legally command Adult ATC WOs and SNCOs, not for the same reasons that they cannot legally command Airmen/Airwomen (ie the absence of delegated operational authority), but because ATC WOs/SNCOs are presently civilians, and sit just outside a similarly-official chain of command. Obviously in the vast majority of practical circumstances this poses no problems, in that requests/instructions/directions achieve exactly the same end results as orders would do, but surely a change in status for ACO WOs/SNCOs into becoming members of the VRT will mean that legally they will/can be subject to orders from Officers, and each-other, in terms of seniority and rank? Please note, I’m not raising this matter in any destructive or pointless way, nor do I think that the presence of formal linked command authority within a single unified grouping will be a bad thing. I do believe though that if this is actually the case, the significance of it deserves to be highlit with regard to responsibilities and outcomes in any extreme future circumstances of a local / personal nature.

  2. Do we know if any similar re-alignments are planned (or offered) for our WO/SNCO colleagues in the ACF? I mean a change in status so as to have responsibilities/opportunities equalised to those in their organisation that are commissioned? Aside from the clear difference that ACF uniformed adults and Cadets are all badged under one Cadet Force, the respective uniformed staff arrangements for the ACF and the ACO are almost identical (presently). I’d be very surprised if ACF non-commissioned adult staff were to ignore such a change in status affecting their ATC comrades, and would be sure to view it positively for the same reasons. If the adult volunteer advantages are genuine/tangible (eg ammo movement/SaBRE annual leave entitlement/course eligibility/insurances), I’d expect MoD to apply it equally to all Cadet Organisations (with all standard SCC caveats applying). Which begs the question: why haven’t ACF non-commissioned adults pushed for this in the past?

(more to follow…)

wilf_san
ps not well today, but at least I get a chance to sign-in on ACC for a change

2

Some interesting information on this topic (and others!) in the ACO Convention presentations on SharePoint.

384 responses (1,795 WOs & SNCOs - according to the recruitment presentation to the ACO Convention), and 88% supported move from ATC to VR(T) for WOs & SNCOs. This represents a response from only 21% of the cadre (according to those figures).

In answer to your questions:

  1. Yes - you are correct. If WOs & SNCOs got VR(T) they will be subject to Service Law whilst in duty, as are Officers currently. Therefore, orders given will have the full authority of Service Law behind them (not currently the case, as you say).

  2. Don’t know - however, there are ACF types on here… The DYER implementation presentation to the ACO Conference certainly alludes to the fact that sSvc CFs have already started to address some of the issues highlighted by DYER on a sSvc basis, presents a “challenge” …my personal belief is that this is because the ACO/RAF is going down a diametrically opposite route to that intended by DYER/MoD; unless they run with my suggestion (which seems to be the case - although I’m not sure I can claim credit for it) of simply exempting CF personnel from the Service Complaints process, or limiting their redress to Level 1 (i.e. 1* = Comdt AC).

Cheers
BTI

PS) Can’t seem to link to the ACO Conference presentations folder on SharePoint, however, the file tree is:

HQ Air cadets > ACO Document Library > Engagement > Presentations > ACO Convention 2014

3

Thanks bti, glad to see you’re still on the forum. Have been extremely busy myself over the last 6 months or so, hence my lack of activity here.

Curiously low turn-out for that poll. I wonder if it will be used as litmus test to empower (or not) the future issuing of a formal Individual Statement of Opinion and Intent, to the national cadre? This is what happened for elements of the pre-'97 active reserves, we all were sent letters to home from DRF PMC Innsworth, with feedback slips to gauge opinion from the floor. Then there was the curious everyman’s land of ‘Transitional Reservists’, some of whom went Option ‘Full Bhuna’ straight off the bat, and some who opted for remaining ‘Safe+Seventies’. But that, of course, all became equalised at Re-engagement Time (well, it did for ORs, not necessarily for Officers). So some degree of different engagement terms, initially, could be a practical situation.

[quote=“bti” post=18753]
In answer to your questions:

  1. Yes - you are correct. If WOs & SNCOs got VR(T) they will be subject to Service Law whilst in duty, as are Officers currently. [/quote]

I couldn’t see any way in which this wouldn’t be the case. Again, I’ll stress that I don’t consider that’ll generate any problems, in practice.

I did try registering on http://armycadetforce.com late yesterday, but their system doesn’t seem to want to let me in. I noticed Talon is a member over there (as they are here), as is incubus (very usefully, I’m sure). One of my questions to that forum would have been:

[quote=“bti” post=18753]
The DYER implementation presentation to the ACO Conference certainly alludes to the fact that sSvc CFs have already started to address some of the issues highlighted by DYER on a sSvc basis, presents a “challenge” …my personal belief is that this is because the ACO/RAF is going down a diametrically opposite route to that intended by DYER/MoD; [/quote]
This head-on paradox is something I’ve not been able to make sense of. Whilst I personally believe I can see the benefit in the consolidation of the ACO’s superstructure (ie the re-brigading of WOs and SNCOs into an adult volunteer reserve alongside their fellow Officers, and parallel to the Cadets they instruct), it does seem to totally fly in the face of existing orbats for the big ACF (ie everyone irrespective of rank/Staff/Cadet all collectively part of one organisation), coupled with the background talk of possible Cadet Force Commissions. I reckon the ACO has got it right, so far (and is headed in the correct future direction) not just because of my parent service bias or personal history, but because it genuinely makes the most organisational sense. I’ll explain more of my take on this later.

That appears to be a totally-sensible approach. But it highlights the fact that aside from a few oblique references within RFA96 (and none at all that I know of in AFA06/11), the crucial but ill-defined CFAV does not have many paragraphs of Statute from which guidance and regulation can be sought. To say the time is ripe is both obvious, and many decades overdue.

[quote=“bti” post=18753]PS) Can’t seem to link to the ACO Conference presentations folder on SharePoint, however, the file tree is:

HQ Air cadets > ACO Document Library > Engagement > Presentations > ACO Convention 2014[/quote]
Thanks, much obliged. Although (for ironic reasons) I can’t currently access BADER from here right now…I normally have that problem at work, not when at home!

wilf_san

4

Was there anyone expecting a greater response?
According to the figures only 18% of the total wanted a change, you should be getting closer to 80% participation for something like this. I would suggest these figures show an overall ambivalence/apathy and as in my SNCOs opinion it’s a done deal, thus the poll, especially how it was worded was a waste of time. It didn’t outline or mention what the change would entail and the questions were exceptionally poor.

5

I can guarantee there were delivery issues in getting the poll out. It will have been ignored at some levels or actively blocked at others.
Assuming it did get to the intended targets, the form was not particularly well prepared with response in mind and that may have put some off.
Then you need to remember that many people won’t care to respond to anything.

The fact that we did not get 100% hit is irrelevant so long as we can guarantee that those who did respond were a representative sample of the SNCO/WO in the wider corps.

I would be interested in seeing the results of a better poll - one which offered people a choice rather than an opinion and which provided solid information on those choices on which the respondents could base their decisions.

It may be that 80% support the change, but only, say, 30% would prefer it to an alternative.

6

[quote]incubus wrote:
I can guarantee there were delivery issues in getting the poll out. It will have been ignored at some levels or actively blocked at others.[/quote]

This is critical to understanding the figures.

I can’t understand why the delivery method that was used, was used. Contrast (possibly because it was run by a professional organisation) the WO/SNCO survey to the recent CFAV survey, which I think used surveymonkey (or something like it). Even a BADER survey would have been better.

I know for a fact that within my Wing the WO/SNCO cadre were only given a week’s notice, due to the delay in getting the survey to the frontline via the WWO (who had been on leave).

I have to admin, when I read it, it seemed very much a case of “this is happening, do you think its a good thing or a bad thing?”.

I think it probably is reasonably representative, despite the problems with it. The straw polls conducted on here in the past support that conclusion.

Cheers
BTI

7

I got about a 3rd replied in my wing. A couple asked some odd questions around fitness test! Of those that replied all were positive inc me as i stated in an earlier reply I would like to see it as it will give clarity on a number issues

8

[quote=“bti” post=18763][quote]incubus wrote:
I can guarantee there were delivery issues in getting the poll out. It will have been ignored at some levels or actively blocked at others.[/quote]

This is critical to understanding the figures.

I can’t understand why the delivery method that was used, was used. Contrast (possibly because it was run by a professional organisation) the WO/SNCO survey to the recent CFAV survey, which I think used surveymonkey (or something like it). Even a BADER survey would have been better.[/quote]
The delivery method was used because this was half-hearted and knee-jerk to give the illusion that a voice was being given.
The three biggest questions locally were why, where did this idea come from and what are the benefits to us as individuals. This would indicate that it’s the pet idea, of a few, probably WOs, thinking that VR(T) status is some something marvellous and as such hasn’t been fully explained to the SNCOs as a whole.

Positive? Obviously to you but not everyone.

9

It came as a direct result of DYER and was out of HQAC. As for the positive, I meant nobody threw there toys out of their pram! Unlike some :wink:

10

Even taking account of possible ‘issues’ with getting the survey out, which has been mentioned on here and of which I have no personal knowledge of as I’m not that side of the house, I wouldn’t get wrapped around the axle over a 21% return. When you consider other survey response rates, and there is ample evidence and discussion of survey statistics etc on the internet, it’s actually not bad. I would suggest that even using a professional surveying tool and properly worded questions would not have resulted in more than a 30 - 35% response rate.

The sad fact is that in surveys like this, unless there are big personal incentives or inducements to send a return, only those who have strong opinions, one way or the other, will actually take the time to respond. Incubus made the sound comment earlier in the fact that the survey did not get 100% hit was irrelevant so long as that those who did respond were a representative sample of the SNCOs/WOs in the wider Corps. I would argue that this is probably what we have; the ambivalent 79% of the WO/SNCO cadre would have been ambivalent in their responses also and what HQAC have got back is therefore probably a true representation of those who actually give a stuff.

11

didnt the recent elections/voting only see 35% which was seen as a “large” number of the voting population?

yes 20% is woefully low but as mentioned there are reasons why people didnt (or couldnt) reply…but appeared as a heavily bias survey anyway

12

[quote]wilf_san wrote:

[quote]bti wrote:
The DYER implementation presentation to the ACO Conference certainly alludes to the fact that sSvc CFs have already started to address some of the issues highlighted by DYER on a sSvc basis, presents a “challenge” …my personal belief is that this is because the ACO/RAF is going down a diametrically opposite route to that intended by DYER/MoD;[/quote]
This head-on paradox is something I’ve not been able to make sense of. Whilst I personally believe I can see the benefit in the consolidation of the ACO’s superstructure (ie the re-brigading of WOs and SNCOs into an adult volunteer reserve alongside their fellow Officers, and parallel to the Cadets they instruct), it does seem to totally fly in the face of existing orbats for the big ACF (ie everyone irrespective of rank/Staff/Cadet all collectively part of one organisation), coupled with the background talk of possible Cadet Force Commissions.[/quote]

I think the ACO/RAF is getting its ducks lined up in advance of the impending DYER bun-flight, especially in respect of the legal status of uniformed CFAVs.

Its clear from the ACO responses to the DYER Interim Report (obtained by an intrepid FOI request, not the CoC!) that the RAF wishes to retain strategic and operational control of, and “own the risk” for, the ACO; whereas the MoD/Army seem to want to push the ACF (and thus the ATC as well) down the SCC “arms-length” model. It seems to me that the RAF doesn’t want this approach, since if they have the strategic and operational control of the CF, then they can manage the risk accordingly …despite the obvious attractions from a funding and admin burden perspective, even an “arms-length” CF still carries huge financial and reputational risk for the RAF, especially if flying/gliding were to continue to be a Core Activity. Look at what happened re. Tutors 1 & 2 - it was the RAF in front of the media (and may yet be in Court), not the ACO. Incidentally, the same applied to the Army re. the Kylee McIntosh incident, both in respect of the media, and in Court.

If the ACO re-brigades the WO/SNCO cadre into the VR(T) before the DYER bun-fight starts in earnest, then the RAF is in a stronger position to defend retaining the C2 “ownership” of uniformed CFAVs. Re. the rumours of a “Cadet Forces Commission” for Officers, as the RAVERA presentation to the ACO Convention states (see above), the status quo is preferred by the RAF - albeit with amendments to Officers T&COS to limit the level to which they can escalate a Service Complaint. If WOs & SNCOs went VR(T), the same - modified - T&COS would no doubt apply to them. Under RFA96 the Defence Council can make whatever regulations it likes in respect of T&COS; so if there is the power to exempt serving reservists from an annual training and call-out liability, there is undoubtedly the power to exempt them partially or completely from the SC process.

Put simply - in my view - the RAF wishes to retain (a) a slightly modified version of the status quo re. Officers, and (b) by re-brigading WOs & SNCOs into the VR(T), operational C2 of its uniformed CFAVs (and thus C2 of units, since units are not commanded by CIs!).

This position seems to me to be diametrically opposed to the position of the Army, who clearly wish to decouple the ACF from its current arrangements and push it down the SCC “arms-length” route; with grant-in-aid funding and ACF Officers, as opposed to TA (Army Reserve!) List B.

Cheers
BTI

13

[quote=“bti” post=18753] …my personal belief is that this is because the ACO/RAF is going down a diametrically opposite route to that intended by DYER/MoD; unless they run with my suggestion (which seems to be the case - although I’m not sure I can claim credit for it) of simply exempting CF personnel from the Service Complaints process, or limiting their redress to Level 1 (i.e. 1* = Comdt AC).
[/quote]

I can see why you might think this is a good idea, but:

Firstly, if there is a requirement to have people Commissioned into a Reserve Force for the purposes of Cadet Activities, then imo they should be entitled to the same redress as their peers in any other Reserve or Regular Force - irrespective of their role. How grievances are handled within the CoC is integral to minimising how far the right to redress reaches before it is satisfied. Currently I suspect that the right level of self-policing is not taking place - in part I think due to the condition of the ACO itself (a reluctance to re-educate in case people walk, or simply refusing people who don’t suit the organisation membership in the first place).

Secondly, should the ‘watered down Commission’ approach be taken, then I think it inappropriate that Comdt AC (however just I consider our current one to be) should have the final say on any redress - this should lie at AOC 22 Gp (as a minimum) to provide governance and ensure that no In-House whitewashing takes place, which could later cause embarrassment to the RAF or bring it into disrepute. If I was AOC 22 Gp I would certainly want that assurance if I am responsible for an entity that I have no visibility of. Also, what if a VR(T) Group Captain takes issue with Comdt AC? Where do they go with it?

14

Well that would be a first, I would never given them credance for such thinking.
If they are you can bet everything that you own they are not doing for the adult volunteers, it will be done to ensure that some minion(s) keep(s) their job(s) and we will be left in our current state of limbo .
What I want at the end is a clear understanding of what and who we are; are we RAF or are we volunteer staff in a youth organisation linked to the RAF, as currently we are RAF when it suits and ATC when it doesn’t. This must be for all staff not just uniformed.

15

On my BASIC course last weekend this topic was mentioned a couple of times and a question came up which was along the lines of:
To be in the VRT you have to be a Uk national etc. whereas to be an ATC NCO you only have to have lived in the UK for 3 years so what would happen to all the non-uk nationals that are currently NCOs if they move over to VRT

16

[quote=“Tricky” post=18850]On my BASIC course last weekend this topic was mentioned a couple of times and a question came up which was along the lines of:
To be in the VRT you have to be a Uk national etc. whereas to be an ATC NCO you only have to have lived in the UK for 3 years so what would happen to all the non-uk nationals that are currently NCOs if they move over to VRT[/quote]

I think you need to question those delivering your BASIC Tricky. The nationality requirements (for VR(T) at least) should be the same as others for joining the RAF, ie a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen and have resided in the UK for a certain period (there are some exceptions I think, but those are the general requirements).

This was brought up last year as at the time, I had a CI who was about to go to OASC and who was an Eire passport holder but she had lived in the UK all her life. I saw the nationality missive from HQAC and I asked my Wg Ex O for clarification as HQAC had already screened her application and OASC were clearly happy with it too. I was advised that HQAC had made an error in stating UK citizens only for VR(T), their instruction was apparently a result of applications for VR(T) service from residents of Middle East and European countries.

17

Applicants for VR(T):
British subject, or
Citizen of the ROI, or
Born in a country or territory which is (or was then) part of the Commonwealth or ROI, or
Each parent was born in a country or territory which is (or was then) part of the Commonwealth or ROI

SNCO / CI Applicants
Non UK nationals may apply but only if they comply with a UK residency of 5 years for CRB requirements.

As currently delivered on BASIC in my Wing, however this would be at odds with ACP 20 PI 102 so it looks like a rewrite is on the cards.

MW

18

Thanks for the clarification MW.

As Tricky mentioned, it could be interesting how the nationality rules are applied when (or if) the WO/SNCO cadre become VR(T)! Will people be asked to leave?

Just out of interest, does anyone know of any non UK, RoI, Commonwealth etc WOs or SNCOs? I’ve never come across any.

19

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=18858]Thanks for the clarification MW.

As Tricky mentioned, it could be interesting how the nationality rules are applied when (or if) the WO/SNCO cadre become VR(T)! Will people be asked to leave?

Just out of interest, does anyone know of any non UK, RoI, Commonwealth etc WOs or SNCOs? I’ve never come across any.[/quote]

we had a guy from Rhodesia no issues whatsoever - sadly passed away

20

Well that would be a first, I would never given them credance for such thinking.
If they are you can bet everything that you own they are not doing for the adult volunteers, it will be done to ensure that some minion(s) keep(s) their job(s) and we will be left in our current state of limbo .
What I want at the end is a clear understanding of what and who we are; are we RAF or are we volunteer staff in a youth organisation linked to the RAF, as currently we are RAF when it suits and ATC when it doesn’t. This must be for all staff not just uniformed.[/quote]

Will you give it a rest just for once and take your tinfoil hat off. You are becoming the equivalent of a bar bore.