Not until tomorrow! 
Or, conversely, the under-resourced HQAC is focusing on greater issues. But itâs changed now anyway.
Thatâs a completely unfair and untrue generalisation. And I think thatâs all the response that remark needs.
As I said above, all we can go by are the rules that we know that apply to us. If you or anyone has a case to put forward for exception or to try to change those rules then crack on through the available channels, but if in a situation where someone is questioning it then defensiveness and pointing fingers at fellow CFAV is not the helpful course of action.
1 Like
Not until tomorrow
âŚOr, they might be someone who doesnât know better and is only going by what theyâve been told in this organisation, which is generally âif itâs not in the regulations, then itâs not allowedâ - it even says that in the book. We canât blame people for not knowing something which they havenât been told.
3 Likes
Youâre not going to win with common sense in this thread.
4 Likes
Utter rubbish, people trying to use AP amendment states to justify their power games.
How fantastic it is to see ex serving aircrew serving the cadet forces, and how brilliant for cadets to see and interact with those people who can talk about their service and the heritage and ethos of hard earned badges and insignia. And then some idiot âer you canât wear that because it isnât listed in APâŚâ
Just because you might think that itâs people playing âpower gamesâ doesnât mean it isâŚ
2 Likes
So these arenât the same CFAV that are wearing all manner of âtacticalâ stuff, random MTP stuff and unit badges on MTP etc⌠then? They are all perfectly in line with the dress AP?
You all know you are squabbling over something that will probably end up in v4 of 1358c right?
Well, we donât know do we⌠If we have a specific example⌠a specific person, then we could examine on a case-by-case basis.
But if all weâre doing is making wild generalisations then that doesnât relate to anything, does it?
Whataboutism / two wrongs donât make a right / they would be justifiably picked up for breaching regs just the same.
If you want to raise it, raise it with HQAC. See what they say. If you come across someone wearing something not in regs then take it up with them/your CoC.
If this deteriorates any further into petty squabbling over hypotheticals, stereotypes, and generalisations then Iâll lock it.
Folks please just stop. You are ALL missing the main point.
I canât wear any wings DESPITE being a PPL holder!
Now thatâs the real injustice.
14 Likes
As a civvy organisation I wonder if we should recognise those who hold any form of flying or gliding qualification. Just because it didnât come from the RAF it doesnât de-value the fact someone might have something to offer a Cadet who has a question.
1 Like
Yes I think it would be a good idea to allow suitably qualified CFAV to wear the C wings. Could follow up with perhaps a half wing variant for those with professional drone qualifications.
2 Likes
I know someone in my wing asked the question if CPL. holder could hold the baby RAF/UAS/Iâve forgotten their name wings⌠Basically for told to go away
You mean the Primary Flying badge (known as the âBudgie Wingsâ)?
No. You must have done an approved RAF course of Flying instruction (ie UAS) to receive such. Furthermore you could only wear it as a RAFVR or RAFVR(T) member. As a Regular you could only wear it as a member of a UAS. Upon arriving at Cranditz you could no longer wear it.
QR727 is quite clear on this.
I wore it as a UAS member (I was on a University Cadetship and Commissioned as an A Plt Off) but had to remove it when I rocked up for IOT at Cranditz.
When I was Cdt our 2 i/c wore them because he was ex-UAS. Our OC wore the Navigator badge because he was an ex-Canberra Nav.
The difference is⌠Instead of ranting at a forum to people who can do nothing about it⌠They simply just asked the question to the people that could make a difference
Oh dear gods. Get over it, I am not ranting at you. I am merely stating the facts.
Quite
2 Likes
I have it on good authority QRs donât apply to us? So, we could come up with or own rules? Cuts both ways really.
1 Like