I thought the Aircrew Rank slides were mainly an indicator of being, you know, Aircrew…
Can you not be a CI as supernumerary staff these days?
Good grief, are we really going here again?
Your point assumes that ‘aircrew’ in the air Cadet context means the same thing as ‘aircrew’ in the RAF. They are not the same organisation and the definition of ’aircrew‘ In the air cadets is whatever the air cadets want it to mean.
Your argument would mean that RAFAC officers should call themselves officers unless they have undergone the same selection and 24 wk IOT as regulars or that RAFAC NCOs should not wear their rank unless they do what ever training and selection a regular equivalent NCO is required to do.
The two organisations are not the same so ‘aircrew’ in the RAFAC is not, and should not be , equivalent to aircrew in the RAF.
1 Like
I agree.
Let’s make it mean “aircrew”; as opposed to “ground crew” 
5 Likes
‘Aircrew’ has a very specific meaning in the English language- see previous post.
The point is however that RAFAC allows CFAVs that have no flying quals to wear aircrew tabs, but some of those who are actually aircrew cannot.
1 Like
I think this nicely sums up the absurdity of it.
Does it really matter, probably not. Am I going to get stroppy about it, no. Will it change what I do on squadron, no. But it would be nice if there was something was all I was getting at…!
1 Like
Mind you, I suppose it’s not a million miles away in absurdity from a previous precedent which encouraged instructors to wear flying suits for purely classroom-based lessons in aviation-related topics…
2 Likes
I understand the place the absurdity of wearing a flying suite in a classroom comes from - last week as I hit peak tedium at home I thought I would clean my flight bag out of old rubbish/notes/crisp packets and had to resist the urge of putting my headset on… at home… in my kitchen…
I had a word with myself afterwards…
2 Likes
It’s okay… I keep a rigger’s harness, gloves, and hard hat to wear whenever I’m delivering a powerpoint presentation about antennae…
1 Like
I’ve got my anorak for aircraft recognition.
9 Likes
Oh I couldn’t agree with you more old boy. I get the same stomach churning nausea every time I see a CFAV in No5 dress or MTP- absolutely no need for it!
I’m being sarcastic of course.
To take you seriously for a moment… that’s exactly the problem with lessons in flying suits.
If I taught lessons in no. 5s, I’d be rightly excoriated.
Now, MTP is a difficult one, if you work in a tri-service environment…
I’ve seen many classroom based lectures conducted in MTP and there are quite a few virtual parades I’ve seen done in MTP. I don’t have a problem with that at all, I’m just not sure why some on here take issue with flying suits…we are the AIR Cadets you know!
I think it’s because a flying suit is specifically designed as a protective outer garment for flying operations, and that the whole QAIC ‘teaching in flying suits issue’ arose at a time when the RAF were specifically trying to ‘encourage’ their own aircrew to stop wearing them as routine - instead requiring No 2 to be worn when not on flying duties.
I think it rather awoke memories of a similar QJL “look at me, I’m special” mindset.
Personally I don’t lose sleep over it because I see so few of them anywhere, but it does strike me as bloody stupid to be donning an item of operational protective clothing when venturing no further than a classroom.
I think of it akin to putting coveralls on to teach a STEM theory lesson.
1 Like
that made me chuckle
The RAF asks us to volunteer and wear its uniform (with modifications) in order to convey to cadets the whole RAF experience. Otherwise, we might as well wear hoodies and baseball caps! shudders
I think the wearing of flying suits should therefore be encouraged at every opportunity to fulfil that purpose. We need to remember, we’re not the RAF, we have a different function which sometimes means wearing flying suits, MTP or whatever when strictly not necessary. If someone wants to don a flying suit then good luck to them I say and if that makes them a bit of a walt for doing so then I’m not that bothered. The measure of a CFAV is their enthusiasm and commitment for delivering the cadet experience, not what they wear surely? Frankly though, as a strong believer in the air cadets being ‘air minded’, if I see more flying suits in the RAFAC than MTP, I will be a very happy chap!
1 Like
although i doubt many will disagree with your point, and in particular…
…it is a case wearing which ever uniform in the right context.
some would prefer we wore No1s more often, if only to show off the medals have have.
Others prefer to be in No3s as it feels more “real military” and easier to be mistaken as a regular (I know i have received more comments of “thanks for all you do” from the public when in No3s Vs my blues when i have run an errand before/after duty)
there are some that just love to be in flying suits as they want to be seen as pilot.
but whatever the uniform is preferred it has to be justified.
is No1s justified or necessary to teach classifications? likewise for No3s or Flying suits when it is a classroom based subject.
that is wear people have beef.
i know some who insist on running radio courses in No3s as the Cadets spread out around the compound to offer separation between groups. because they are “walking on the grass” and potential for dirtying their parade shoes the course is run in No3s - but it there is no need.
likewise for flying suits - if you’re not going near an aircraft (and by that I mean airborne) when teaching air nav for example (and purely classroom based subject) why is the flying suit required? it is no more justified than No1s or 3s as a classroom based activity
You mean everybody isn’t wearing full 5s for their Teams calls?.. Oh.
2 Likes
only for the WSO cheese and biscuit evenings
2 Likes
Unfortunately you see, that’s where most people, including the senior RAF commanders, disagree with you. Whoever came up with the idea of letting QAIC cadets don a flying suit for any lesson they happen to be teaching was not only doing the course a disservice by attracting justified criticism; they were doing so against the explicit orders of the RAF who are trying to stamp out exactly that practice.
As we are regularly told we are a “light blue” organisation.
I have no issue whatsoever with wearing the right kit for the right task, but that’s the weakest of reasons. Flying suits are intended for wearing in aircraft. Wearing them solely for classroom training is equally as unecessary as making cadets turn out in long sleeves and tie for car parking duties.
Pointing out that we’re not the RAF means there’s even less reason for them to be worn by us than by regular aircrew.
The default is supposed to be working blues, with other modes of uniform worn when there is a need for them.
You ask why people don’t like it… THIS is why. It’s the attitude that says “to hell with the RAF and their uniform regulations, let’s let a few special people dress up like pilots whenever they fancy to show how special they are”.
3 Likes
Growbag = throbber.
I learnt principles of flight (admittedly some time ago) from a bloke in razer sharp creased trousers, shirt, tie and blazer - but this chap had merely flown stringbags off carriers in the Med and Arctic, so perhaps he can’t be compared to the kind of uber-God who’s done a QAIC course…
6 Likes