we had a guy from Rhodesia … [/quote]
Was Rhodesia not in the Commonwealth?
[quote]ACP20 PI102 wrote:
NATIONALITY RULES
General
- Personnel who wish to be considered for appointment as a CFAV in the ACO must be British at the time of their application. This includes candidates who are British by birth and those who have naturalized. Applications will also be considered from candidates who are Commonwealth, Irish, British Protected or dual national (British/other) from birth.[/quote]
Effective from Jun13.
Cheers
BTI
[quote]GHE2 wrote:
[quote]bti wrote:
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.
[/quote]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]
There should always have been a clear understanding of “who we are” in respect of Officers. Quite simply one is a serving RAFVR/RAFR reservist - without an annual training and call-out liability - serving with the ATC, not as part of it. The lack of clarity is, in my view, a result of no one understanding, or bothering to understand, that status.
Again, there should always have been a correspondingly clear understanding of where WOs/SNCOs sit; they are (legally) uniformed - but civilian - volunteer adult instructors in the ATC. Their legal status is similar to members of the former Royal Observer Corps (ROC), who wore an RAF-like uniform (like the ATC), were integrated with the RAF (like the ATC), and had a war-role (unlike the ATC!) …but at the end of the day were - legally - uniformed civilian volunteers. As such, a WO/SNCO(ATC) could always (potentially) refuse to follow a lawful order without consequence (however unlikely that may be) …which is what the current Comdt, HQAC, and Air Cmd seem to be increasingly unhappy with.
At least if both cadres are brought together in the RAFVR(T), then everyone should know where they stand. All uniformed staff will be serving RAFVR/RAFR reservists - without an annual training and call-out liability - serving with the ATC, not as part of it.
Cheers
BTI
[quote=“bti” post=18875]
There should always have been a clear understanding of “who we are” in respect of Officers. Quite simply one is a serving RAFVR/RAFR reservist - without an annual training and call-out liability - serving with the ATC, not as part of it. The lack of clarity is, in my view, a result of no one understanding, or bothering to understand, that status.[/quote]
I think that many elements of the organisation fully understand this, and sensibly interpret what it means in practice. But I know this isn’t universally the case
[quote=“bti” post=18875]
Again, there should always have been a correspondingly clear understanding of where WOs/SNCOs sit; they are (legally) uniformed - but civilian - volunteer adult instructors in the ATC. [/quote]
As we’re all aware, the discussions/plans to realign them fully into the VRT (whether they are eventually followed-through with or not) are surely well-intentioned, and logical.
However, there is in my opinion something of a misunderstanding/ collective mythology regarding the implicit lack of culpability for WOs/SNCOs(ATC) and other non-Officers in respect of military law. Just because WOs/SNCOs are currently classed as civilians when on duty needn’t necessarily be viewed as giving them total exemption from liability or penalty under Service/Military law. Aspects of this may have previously been the case even under the previous single-service military discipline acts (even including AFA 1955), but under AFA 2006, the application of Service Discipline to relevant civilians appears to be even more explicitly-stated than ever.
If someone can tell me convincingly that the following paragraph would not apply to a Cadet or a WO/SNCO(ATC) during AEF, I’d be very-interested to hear their reasoning:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/schedule/15
[quote=“Armed Forces Act 2006: c. 52 SCHEDULE 15”]
SCHEDULE 15
Civilians subject to service discipline
Part 1 Civilians subject to service discipline
Persons in one of Her Majesty’s aircraft in flight
Para1
(1)A person is within this paragraph if he is in one of Her Majesty’s aircraft in flight.
(2)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the period during which an aircraft is in flight includes—(a)any period from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of the aircraft taking off on a flight until the moment when the landing run (if any) at the termination of that flight ends;(b)any period when the aircraft is on the surface of the sea or navigable waters.
(3)In sub-paragraph (2)(a) a “flight” means a journey by air beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when it next lands.
(4)In this paragraph “Her Majesty’s aircraft” means all aircraft belonging to or used for the purposes of any of Her Majesty’s forces.[/quote]
Could the following paragraph surely not be interpreted as being relevant to WOs/SNCOs(ATC), or even (ironically) classic/remnant RAFR(CC) Officers:
[quote=“Armed Forces Act 2006: c. 52 SCHEDULE 15”]
Part 1 Civilians subject to service discipline
Para 4 Crown servants in designated area working in support of Her Majesty’s forces
(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—
(a)he is a Crown servant;
(b)his sole or main role is to work in support of any of Her Majesty’s forces; and
©he is in a designated area.
(2)In this paragraph “Crown servant” means a person employed by or in the service of the Government of the United Kingdom.[/quote]
Remember? Not employees? I seem to remember the term ‘Crown Servant’ was directly used somewhere, recently to purposefully describe the non-employed status of some/many adult volunteers.
Or potentially this part for MoD civil servants (uniformed or otherwise):
[quote=“Armed Forces Act 2006: c. 52 SCHEDULE 15”]
SCHEDULE 15
Civilians subject to service discipline
Persons working for specified military organisations
Para5
(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—
(a)he is employed by or in the service of a specified naval, military or air-force organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;
(b)he is so employed by reason of the United Kingdom’s membership of that organisation; and
©he is outside the British Islands.
(2)In this paragraph “specified” means specified by order of the Secretary of State under this paragraph.[/quote]
The references at Para 7 to “Persons designated by or on behalf of Defence Council” whilst mainly aimed at Locally Engaged Overseas Civilian Personnel might be capable of being seen as also relevant to persons ‘Appointed to Serve’ (a familiar term in the organisation)
[quote=“bti” post=18875]Their legal status is similar to members of the former Royal Observer Corps (ROC), who wore an RAF-like uniform (like the ATC), were integrated with the RAF (like the ATC), and had a war-role (unlike the ATC!) …but at the end of the day were - legally - uniformed civilian volunteers.[/quote]We in the ROC were officially described as spare-time uniformed civil servants, but again it’s something of an urban legend that there would have been no liabilities held against us if we’d deserted our ‘posts’. Uniformed civilians in appointed operational roles under Transition To War can be (and effectively still are) often actually under almost as much military discipline as regulars or mobilised active reserves. Examples that come to mind include Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Defence Fire Service, many forward elements of MoD (Air) etc
[quote=“bti”]As such, a WO/SNCO(ATC) could always (potentially) refuse to follow a lawful order without consequence (however unlikely that may be) …which is what the current Comdt, HQAC, and Air Cmd seem to be increasingly unhappy with.[/quote]Possibly, but in practice I’d say the main reason for collecting the uniformed staff over into the single most-logical group is more for efficient management/control than as a strengthening of options for sanction or penalty. I’d also like think that it’s part of an even-wider strategy of looking at other related option that immediately would come from this and the structural improvements they’d deliver (for the organisation, the Air Force, and to our Cadets).
[quote=“bti”]At least if both cadres are brought together in the RAFVR(T), then everyone should know where they stand. All uniformed staff will be serving RAFVR/RAFR reservists - without an annual training and call-out liability - serving with the ATC, not as part of it.[/quote]Amen to all that (and, attestation etc would also logically have to follow). Overall it could create all sorts of potentially-productive alignment options…
wilf_san
[quote=“bti” post=18875][Again, there should always have been a correspondingly clear understanding of where WOs/SNCOs sit; they are (legally) uniformed - but civilian - volunteer adult instructors in the ATC. … As such, a WO/SNCO(ATC) could always (potentially) refuse to follow a lawful order without consequence (however unlikely that may be) …which is what the current Comdt, HQAC, and Air Cmd seem to be increasingly unhappy with.
At least if both cadres are brought together in the RAFVR(T), then everyone should know where they stand. All uniformed staff will be serving RAFVR/RAFR reservists - without an annual training and call-out liability - serving with the ATC, not as part of it.[/quote]
There is a strong sense of trying to fix something that isn’t broken. We’ve operated for years with this difference and where it matters, on a crappy night in November asking or telling a WO/SNCO to do something doesn’t get any dissent. This is because we all know why we are there and achieving that is paramount which we all understand. It’s only when it gets outside the volunteer side of the ATC a number of us feel that this understanding is lost. There is no benefit from what has been described to the individual or collective except maybe some euphoric emphemeral feeling for a few on the point of change. After this nanosecond we’ll carry on as we did before.
Something that we have had drummed into us at work for years is when we look at changing something, does it add or bring any tangible, indentifiable extra value to us and or our customers, which helps avoid change for the sake of it. What does this bring in these terms and is it just change for the sake of it? As you’ve decribed it’s more about admin than action.
As for being in the RAF and seving with the ATC, as an officer apart from a scroll and uniform I’ve never really felt or been made to feel like I’m in the RAF except when I’ve not done something, contravened some rule or there is some bit of paper that needed filling out three days ago but we were only told yesterday.
It is broken, just hairline fractures that left will lead to a bad brake… This is wider than just orders, accountability etc there a number of legal barriers that need sorting too
Wilf
AFA06 Schedule 15 Part 1 para 1 sub-para 1-4:[quote]
SCHEDULE 15
Civilians subject to service discipline
Part 1 Civilians subject to service discipline
Persons in one of Her Majesty’s aircraft in flight
Para1
(1)A person is within this paragraph if he is in one of Her Majesty’s aircraft in flight.
(2)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the period during which an aircraft is in flight includes—(a)any period from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of the aircraft taking off on a flight until the moment when the landing run (if any) at the termination of that flight ends;(b)any period when the aircraft is on the surface of the sea or navigable waters.
(3)In sub-paragraph (2)(a) a “flight” means a journey by air beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when it next lands.
(4)In this paragraph “Her Majesty’s aircraft” means all aircraft belonging to or used for the purposes of any of Her Majesty’s forces.[/quote]
…would definitely apply to any civilian (e.g. cadet, WO/SNCO(ATC), or CI) during AEF, VGS, and opportunity flying. The best example would be a CGI at a VGS, as the a/c Cdr of one of HM’s a/c.
AFA06 Schedule 15 Part 1 para 4 sub paras 1 & 2:
[quote]Part 1 Civilians subject to service discipline
Para 4 Crown servants in designated area working in support of Her Majesty’s forces
(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—
(a)he is a Crown servant;
(b)his sole or main role is to work in support of any of Her Majesty’s forces; and
(c)he is in a designated area.
(2)In this paragraph “Crown servant” means a person employed by or in the service of the Government of the United Kingdom.[/quote]
…would not apply, since the key definition (in sub-para 2) of a Crown Servant is that they are employed. As volunteers, WOs & SNCOs(ATC) are not - or so we are told - employed, within the meaning of the Act (although I suspect a test case could be required to prove this definitively either way!).
[quote]wilf_san wrote:
[quote]bti wrote:
Their legal status is similar to members of the former Royal Observer Corps (ROC), who wore an RAF-like uniform (like the ATC), were integrated with the RAF (like the ATC), and had a war-role (unlike the ATC!) …but at the end of the day were - legally - uniformed civilian volunteers.[/quote]
We in the ROC were officially described as spare-time uniformed civil servants, but again it’s something of an urban legend that there would have been no liabilities held against us if we’d deserted our ‘posts’. Uniformed civilians in appointed operational roles under Transition To War can be (and effectively still are) often actually under almost as much military discipline as regulars or mobilised active reserves. Examples that come to mind include Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Defence Fire Service, many forward elements of MoD (Air) etc[/quote]
As you say (of course!), but under normal circumstances members of the ROC were - like WOs/SNCOs(ATC) - uniformed civilian volunteers …their being subject to service discipline would only have kicked in under TTW arrangements with the passing of Queens Orders etc. by order of the SoS. Since the service of ATC AWOs (then!) was not subject to such T&COS (i.e. a TTW/war-role), I’d argue that their status - ATC AWOs then, and WOs/SNCOs(ATC) now - is analogous under normal circumstances 
Of course, what most people don’t appreciate - and what I’ve also done a bit of research on - is that both RAFVR(T) Officers and ATC AWOs could easily have been given war-roles and called out for Civil Defence duties (e.g. with, or assisting, the ROC) during the Cold War had the RAF, MOD, or Home Office, wanted/needed their service. Seems that quite a lot was “acceptable in the 80s” and before (with apologies to Calvin Harris).
Cheers
BTI
[quote=“bti”]
[quote=“AFA06 Schedule 15 Part 1 para 4 sub paras 1 & 2”]:
Part 1 Civilians subject to service discipline
Para 4 Crown servants in designated area working in support of Her Majesty’s forces
(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—
(a)he is a Crown servant;
(b)his sole or main role is to work in support of any of Her Majesty’s forces; and
©he is in a designated area.
(2)In this paragraph “Crown servant” means a person employed by or in the service of the Government of the United Kingdom (my emphasis).[/quote]
…would not apply, since the key definition (in sub-para 2) of a Crown Servant is that they are employed[/quote]
By the full legal definition of civil employment (I mean using say EPCA or UN/ILO measures), I certainly wouldn’t expect WOs/SNCOs ATC to be classed as being such. However, I can’t see any way that they would not be described as anything other than being Crown Servants, now. They are acting as Appointed Persons, authorised to carry out certain duties and tasks via a delegated line of management that leads back the Crown. Remembering that in a real sense, individuals such as Police Officers aren’t ‘employed either’: they’re appointed officials, and undoubtedly Crown Servants. Members of the regular armed forces now seem to be employed in ‘jobs’ (according to the current public recruitment campaigns), as opposed to having professional careers, but I strongly suspect their individual / collective status still remains closer to that of an Appointed Crown Servant.
Military Aid to the Civil Power: that’s another matter altogether. Curiously, the UAS elements of the RAFVR can receive such taskings, as do the UOTCs and URNUs. Perhaps there will some more detail on that soon, along with revised relevant information.
wilf_san
How is it broken?
I was a WO years ago and I wasn’t aware of any problems on a personal level and since I’ve not been aware of any problems. I’ve not had the SNCOs I’ve been in charge of coming up to me with furrowed brows and concerns and I’ve not had discussions with colleagues where there has been concerns over the SNCOs. Well no concerns other than important ones like things not going right on the squadron.
I cannot see anything here other than an administrative exercise for the various commands, with no tangible benefits.
As you’re a WO could you elucidate accountability, to whom, what difference would it make and why a percieved change is important and how it will affect and benefit fellow SNCOs?
Flying is a big one - I’m not going to give the full context, but it needs to change trust me…
The fundemental questions to be asked are
Why don’t people find a uniform role attractive?
Why don’t some of those who commission want a command?
Unless this is understood and accepting all reasons without prejudice you are not going to be able to formulate any plan. But I don’t think people at the top are interested. Their solution would be pretty much as is being intimated here; much stronger demarcation between the civilian and uniform staff and between the two uniform cadres.
The irony is that the modern RAF and there a few on here who feel we should have a much closer working practices is increasingly civilian. I imagine the personnel numbers bandied around for the RAF don’t include the civilian workforce.
Personally I think role creep is a good thing as it allows people to get a feel for things As a CI I did a number of jobs and as a WO I was in charge of the sqn for weeks at a time when the CO was away with his job. The latter gave me a taste of command and I wanted more. On a squadron I want people who are willing and prepared to take on a role and not (with a couple of exceptions) based on the clothes and badges they wear. While we have a civilian instructor system people should only go into uniform IF it is what they want to do and not be forced. If you force people down a route then one of two things, they leave or they become a pain to manage. If people don’t like the idea of CIs, which is pretty much how I read it, then the only solution is to ditch the CI system altogther such that when someone pitches up after a CRB they are given a uniform and a badge. This then creates a whole raft of problems; uniform supply, accommodation on RAF stations, older people of the same “rank” as teenagers. A route to overcome this is introduce an upper age limit on staff recruitment.
The LASER Review IMO has never actually materialised as written, other than the Adult SNCO structure and the disasterous last minute panic for older cadets. When it was discussed at the following CO’s Conf, while everyone thought the introduction of an SNCO structure was long overdue, the consenus was the extra courses wouldn’t happen and neither wouldn’t the development for SNCOs. Pity we got it right. It highlights why you shouldn’t let former RAF officers loose on an organisation they don’t really understand.
I find it interesting that the notion of specialisation is suggested in one breath and then promotion to WO is restricted it seems to the drill pigs in the next. As there is much talk of alignment with the RAF, however in the RAF I’ve come across more WOs who aren’t drill pigs than are. This is a flaw in the ATC. If the idea is specialisation then all specialisations get the same promotion routes, not just because you like shouting orders.
From what I’ve seen of the ACF a lot more staff walk away. I’ve seen a number go as they got fed up with the way the ACF works.
heard that the ATC to VRT may happen sooner rather than later - but it is just a rumour, wonder what the parent service thinks of it?? Does that mean the WO Crown will disappear?? Will we get a CPL (another rumour being thrown around at the moment)
I’m sure that any significant concerns will be communicated to those making the decisions. Other than that not much they can do about it if/ as and when it happens.
The majority probably couldnt give a toss.
The only ones that will care will be the occassional airship…
I’m just waiting to see the WO’s response to the new WO badge that rumour control says will be introduced. Apparently, its a T&L but with embroidered ‘ATC’ in 1-inch high letters across the centre of it. Allegedly, it blanks out most of the badge so there’s no doubt that real WO’s and RAF personnel can identify the wearer as a CFAV from quite a long way away.
[quote=“Gunner” post=19667]
Allegedly, it blanks out most of the badge so there’s no doubt that real WO’s and RAF personnel can identify the wearer as a CFAV from quite a long way away.[/quote]
Because that is such a huge problem in the real world…
Not a problem to this call-sign but it may be to the members of the ‘We All Love Tate’s’ club.
its alway’s that one rank that gets everyones goat… I never understand it? The WO’s and WO2’s that I speak to have no issues.
in two separate conversations I heard the mention of ATC becoming VR(T) by the end of the year in the last two weeks…one from a senior office based at HQAC…
the Cpl rank I have only heard rumoured on here and is pointless idea as it will create more problems than it will solve
This was sent around the SCC recently;
CADET FORCE ADULT VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT – NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SEA CADET CORPS
Some of you may have seen copies of a recently-produced ‘Adult Volunteer Agreement’ for members of MoD Sponsored Cadet Forces. This document is intended to address specific issues relating to volunteering with the Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps, it is therefore not applicable to the Sea Cadet Corps and there is no requirement for any uniformed or non-uniformed volunteers to sign it.
Any questions relating to this document should be referred to Captain Sea Cadets.
I’ve not seen the “agreement” myself, I’m afraid.