An interesting comment from GHE2 above regarding training; just out of interest, has anyone thought of actually telling ATF that they are missing bits of training? Does ATF (or HQAC) contact people say 6 - 12 months after a course to see if the training was effective and what was actually needed? They should be, otherwise how is the training ever going to be what people actually need?
GHE2 makes a very good point at the start of this thread and there have been some excellent responses. I’ve posted on here a few times on how ‘RAF’ I think we should be and in short, that is to properly maintain the standing of the Service in the wider community and instil, as far as practicable, elements of the Service ethos. There have been a few comments along similar lines. But GHE 2 also mentions above on whether the Regular Service actually understand what we do and I think he’s absolutely right; there is misunderstanding in both areas. Without doubt, many in the VR(T) and adult WO/SNCO cadre don’t understand the basics of how to behave in their messes and elsewhere and that is a failing on the part of our initial training system. I recall being briefed by my CO (an ex National Serviceman) on what to do in the Mess; we also got a handout on Etiquette and Social Responsibility at Newton on the Basic Course. Whether that handout is still issued, I know not, but it should be. On the other hand, and unfortunately, Regular IOT mentions nothing about the ACO and its staff (at least it didn’t’) and that’s wrong, especially when you consider that whilst the RAF trumpets that 50% (or thereabouts) of RAF officers were cadets (and would presumably,y understand the ACO), that also means 50% weren’t. Furthermore, those that actually were cadets probably won’t have a good upstanding of the nuances of what adult staff actually do. A very brief session in IOT on the ACO, along the ones of ‘this is the ACO, this is what it does for the RAF and these are their staff who you are likely to come across in the Mess’ would not be amiss.
The lowering of mess dress standards is a widespread phenomenon across the RAF, but not so I believe in the Navy or Army. Unfortunately, Cranwell is hugely varied with some students allowed to adopt more casual attire at all times, whilst other (including I suspect, our own trainees) being made to dress more formally. At the end of the day, the overall behaviour remains the same regardless of what you’re wearing, but it pays to check with the PMC or Mess Manager what the standards are before visiting; a good Camp Commandant should do that as well and brief everyone beforehand. I’ve always taken a jacket and tie regardless, as you never know when a VIP may just turn up, forcing everyone into ‘Red Dress Code’.
GHE2 has also already mentioned the staff makeup years ago and I recall when I was a cadet back in the 70s, many of the staff were ex wartime or ex National Service officers. They gave us the Service ethos that we needed. Unfortunately, there are none of these people around any more in uniformed positions and we are not getting anywhere near the same numbers of ex Regulars joining. Therefore, the Corps has to look to itself to staff the Sqns with the result that most of our VR(T) officers are now former cadets. Now that isn’t in itself a bad thing, ex cadets bring enthusiasm and an immediate connection with the cadets to ensure activities remain relevant. What they don’t have is the Service experience which, even in a small degree, is important in the overall concept of what the Corps aims to do. Regrettably, and we have seen the evidence on this site, people don’t know the basics or even where to get advice. Consequently, they make things up and we see the Air Cadet folklore that we are all familiar with. In my view, an ideal split would be equal proportions of ex cadets for the connection with our charges, ex regulars for the military ethos (properly regulated of course) and ex direct civvies for the broadening of everyone’s perspectives!
To finish, 397k has also commented on the worst in our organisation, the disaffected ex junior ranks, mainly, who are on a ‘power trip’ and I entirely agree with the sentiment; there aren’t that many of them but the multiplying effect they have is disproportionate. It’s always a very difficult decision for Sqn Cdrs when you get an ex Junior Rank come along. They can look very good on paper and their demeanour with the Boss is always spot on, but you may not pick up their underlying traits until they are in the organisation. Please don’t get me wrong, some of our best SNCOs are ex Junior Ranks, but as always, it’s the few bad apples that spoil things.
).