[quote=“RightOn” post=10265][quote=“tango_lima” post=10260][quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10256][quote=“tango_lima”]
What, in your opinion, makes it ‘unacceptable’?[/quote]
Not wishing to answer on RightOn’s behalf, but from my perspective, CI is an appointment, not a rank. You could therefore refer to someone as Adjutant Brown or Committee Member Bloggs.[/quote]
Don’t you think ‘unacceptable’ is a bit strong?
RightOn himself says that ‘CI’ is used under ‘rank’ on Bader. I would say that that, and widespread usage as such, makes its use as a title de facto correct. Or at least not incorrect.[/quote]
From a personal perspective, I do consider it unacceptable. At the risk of repeating cygnus maximus, CI is an appointment, not a rank. My Certificate of Appointment clearly states “I hereby appoint you X to be an Honorary Civilian Instructor…”. There is no rank stated or implied.
I appreciate that the use of CI as a “rank” is becoming more common but repeated use does not imply correctness. Unless and until there is a rule change specifically confirming CI as a rank, I will continue to be Mr X, CI, and consider the use of CI as a “rank” as being unacceptable.[/quote]
I think I’m with Tango Lima on this one. We have waaaaaay more important things to be arguing about. Hell, if I refused to answer everytime some pronounced my first name wrong I wouldn’t have many people left to talk to.
[quote=“Gunner” post=10261]While I’m on the subject (and maybe this would be better off in the GMG thread), it really irritates me when I see people who put RAF VR(T) in their signature block(with a space between ‘RAF’ and ‘VRT’. We are commissioned into the 'Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training) branch and I can’t see any spaces on my commissioning scroll between ‘Force’ and ‘Volunteer’.[/quote]There’s a space on mine, otherwise it’d say Royal Air ForceVolunteer Reserve!
But you’re quite correct - it should be RAFVR(T), not RAF VR(T).
I really cannot see people’s issue. Why does it bother people so much to be referred to as CI X?
If people spent half the time they spent on here moaning about something as trivial as this, the ACO would be overflowing with cadets, running fantastic activities every week and we’d never have any other issues!
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10282]Correct method of address for a CI is Sir or Ma’am and when referring to them it’s Mr X or Miss/Mrs Y.[/quote]Reference?
It used to be in ACP 31, Section 1, Chapter 3, Incubus, but I’ve just checked the latest revision on BADGER and oddly it no longer mentions methods of address at all. There is mention of ‘using Sir or Ma’am when speaking to officers, warrant officers and civilian instructors’ in ACP36, but that’s it.
You make an excellent point though, what should we now use as a reference? ACP 36 which is a new cadets’ induction handbook? Old ACPs? Commonly held beliefs? School practices? Some will no doubt argue that because the ACP reference has now gone, we can do what we want and as the cadets will no longer be able to read it for themselves in ACP31, our once uniform practices grow disparate.
It used to be in ACP 31, Section 1, Chapter 3, Incubus, but I’ve just checked the latest revision on BADGER and oddly it no longer mentions methods of address at all. There is mention of ‘using Sir or Ma’am when speaking to officers, warrant officers and civilian instructors’ in ACP36, but that’s it.
You make an excellent point though, what should we now use as a reference? ACP 36 which is a new cadets’ induction handbook? Old ACPs? Commonly held beliefs? School practices? Some will no doubt argue that because the ACP reference has now gone, we can do what we want and as the cadets will no longer be able to read it for themselves in ACP31, our once uniform practices grow disparate.[/quote]
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I think we can probably manage on unwritten tradition. After all the UK has no written constitution and we get by alright.
[quote=“Baldrick” post=10289]
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I think we can probably manage on unwritten tradition. After all the UK has no written constitution and we get by alright.[/quote]
Personally I don’t! Unwritten tradition is ok for me, but what is bad and we see it all the time on here, is when people do what they want because there is nothing or no-one to advise them of tradition…
I am sure that there are lots of examples of how things ought to be done but which we are not able to pass on as effectively these days. The thing about hats off when eating for instance.
I am sure when we had the majority of ACO staff being ex-regulars it was easy enough for these things to find their way in through osmosis but now we have units with only relatively tenuous links to the armed forces and the “knowledge” simply doesn’t get passed on as effectively.
It sounds to me like there is scope for pamphlet or even a page on a website. The ACF go on about some manual or other about service traditions (can our tame ACF members confirm?)
I gather AP1 is no longer handed out at ATF - can anyone confirm this? Certainly the last person I had on the OIC didn’t come home with a copy, as I did (10 years ago, mind you…)
Im sure Liz holds the Title of HM The Queen but it isnt her rank yet she gets referred to as HM The Queen.
I find it so pathetic that people actually give a crap over how they are addressed by cadets and other staff. Does someone being addressed as “CI X” really effect how you deliver your training activities to cadets? Honestly focus on more pressing issues, such as getting your cadets flying or shooting.
So, during your extensive 3 years in the TA, you didn’t bother with formalities, and I assume you and your colleagues addressed each other as ‘mate’ or by first names? I can’t see an infantry CO, even a TA one, accepting that.
Regardless of the debates on his site about the degree of closeness we should have with our parent Service, at the moment, the ACO is part of the RAF. If you hadn’t noticed, we wear RAF uniforms, our officers have the same commission as others in the Service and our SNCOs wear the same ranks as their RAF counterparts. We also have the standards of the Service to maintain. Until all that changes and we become merely a youth club, methods of address are important.
As far as I am concerned, it is about standards. As part of the RAF family, we teach our cadets about ranks and titles and the importance of getting it right - and that starts on your own squadron. If I am the only member of staff in the room, my cadets call me “Sir”. If there is another CI, WO or VRT then they will get my attention by calling me “Mr X” then thereafter “Sir” as appropriate.
Besides, it doesn’t take two seconds to correct a cadet who addresses you incorrectly (unless it is in a derogatory manner and needs to be referred to the SWO) and thereafter you can continue what you are doing and said cadet usually doesn’t make the same mistake again (much like new cadets who get confused and call Sgt/FS “Sir”).
No during my 3 years i referred to people as Sir or by their rank. The TA dont have Civilian instructors. And what does it really matter if someone is referred to as “CI Bloggs”? Will you refuse to work for your cadets just because they used your appointment title instead of Mr?
In the last 6 or so years i must have completely missed the fact that the light blue shirt and rank slides id put on twice a week and almost every weekend was RAF uniform… I honestly thought i was wearing a police uniform. Silly me.
RightOn- by your argument are we not supposed to refer to the Cmdt as Cmdt ACO and solely use her rank and Surname?
No, as I said in my previous post, I would correct the cadet in question then carry on. Most of the CIs I know would do the same. No one would be so petty as to refuse to work for their cadets for making a mistake - we are, after all, here to contribute to their education and correcting mistakes is part of that education.
I’m not sure how my argument equates to that.
As I said previously, I’m Mr X, who is a CI and who my cadets call “Sir”. In the same way, the Cmdt is Air Cdre McCafferty, who is Commandant Air Cadets and who cadets salute and call “Ma’am”.
There is nothing wrong with using the title, as long as it is not confused with rank. I wouldn’t call the Cmdt “Commandant Air Cadets McCafferty” and so in the same way I wouldn’t expect to be called “CI X”.
It is not the most pressing issue in the Corps, by any means, and in reality I only ever need to correct cadets (usually new, inexperienced cadets) a very small number of times per year. However, if we are going to maintain standards, then correct them I shall.
The only problem with “correcting” them, is that it relies on the suposition that you are in fact right.
Which is debatable - as this thread has proven.
