Air Cadets staff powers of Auth never really crosses our paths we have plenty of other laws that are slightly higher on the relevance scale. It is impossible to have all Air Force Law submitted to memory, my point was that when I looked it up it was very hard to find any real clarity and certainly there has been confusion in the past by ATC staff themselves.
I can’t get excited about it was just curious.
Thank you for your Question, we are always here to help and offer some relevant advise.
As an ex cadet I’m sure you will enjoy being an ACLO.
I’ve worked with lots of excellent ACLO’s over the years and all have been able to bring activity to the programs, (which non ex cadet ACLO don’t seem to understand the enthusiasm of the organisation).
I’m sure some of the Admins of this site will agree.
[quote=“wilf_san” post=19550]Cadet Force Adult Volunteers that are commissioned into the Training branch of the RAFVR, for service with the Air Cadet Organisation (or ACF Officers commissioned into List B of the Army Reserve) do not have direct command authority over Officers of lower rank, or over Other Ranks, in either the regular forces or the active reserves.
That specific authority is not delegated to them, because they do not have an operational role.
However, since they are commissioned Officers holding rank (including acting rank) appropriate to the positions of responsibility they hold, their reasonable requests and instructions would normally be courteously accommodated in a manner equivalent to that shown in response to having received an order.
Bear in mind that the low substantive rank held by a commissioned CFAV reflects their relative lack of authority outside the organisation they are serving with. This in no way reduces the significance of the Queen’s Commission itself (or the fundamental powers and responsibilities associated with it) but is a practical arrangement based upon requirements.
I’m also intrigued to know whether the OP is posting about a hypothetical or real-world situation
wilf_san
[/quote]
Wilf - on this basis then - this would apply to any Officer not in direct command of an Airman (i.e. An Army 2nd Lt. on detatched duty)?
QR’s only really specify that RO’s are junior to Regs of the same rank (as far as I could see).
Where are you taking your info from? (And I have no cause to doubt it)
I have to echo NC’s comments as your explanation wilf, seem to be a little vague. Could you provide a reference for the following:
I’m sure that you can provide the reference but I’m sure it will go a long way towards explaining the grey area between the limits of authority between a VR(T) officer and those who hold regular and reserve commissions.
I never understand why this question comes up.
99.999% of us never see the RAF for more than a few days a year and then unless they getting involved unnecessarily with the cadets, mosty young airman trying to impress the girlies, which normally involves a chat with the ACLO to get the message reinforced by the SWO. I wouldn’t go pursuing it myself as it would involve processes and procedures I know nothing about.
When you are on a camp or visit you are too consumed in your main function, namely ensuring the cadets and staff are behaving themselves to be concerned about what the regulars may or may not be doing and if it’s inline with the regs.
I fully appreciate there are some in our midst who get overly excited on an RAF station and do the “do you know who I am” routine, but they are a minority.
[quote]GHE2 wrote:
there are some in our midst who get overly excited on an RAF station and do the “do you know who I am” routine, but they are a minority. [/quote]
…without wishing to fall into this category 
[quote]Gunner wrote:
I’m sure that you can provide the reference but I’m sure it will go a long way towards explaining the grey area between the limits of authority between a VR(T) officer and those who hold regular and reserve commissions[/quote]
There is no grey area, legally, or by regulation …as always, the context is understanding and common-sense.
[quote]noah claypole wrote:
QR’s only really specify that RO’s are junior to Regs of the same rank [/quote]
[quote]Queens Regulations for the Royal Air Force wrote:
CHAPTER 4 - COMMAND, CORRESPONDING RANK AND PRECEDENCE
Exercise of Command.
(10) Retired officers and officers of the reserves and auxiliaries will exercise command only when:
(a) Employed on full pay in the circumstances indicated on QRs 121 to 123.
(b) Employed on civil rates of pay, if commissioned in Class CC or J of the RAFR.
(c) Specially detailed to perform air force duty by the OC of the station.
Royal Auxiliary Air Force, RAF Volunteer Reserve (Training) and RAF Volunteer Reserve (University Air Squadrons) Officers.
(1) Except as provided in clause (2), officers of the RAuxAF are to rank junior to officers of the RAF or the RAFResO of the same rank. Similarly, officers of the RAFVR(T) and the RAFVR(UAS) are to rank junior to officers of the RAF, RAFResO or RAuxAF of the same rank. The seniority of officers of the RAFVR(T) in relation to officers of the RAFVR(UAS) is to be determined by the date of appointment or promotion.
(2) When any portion of the RAuxAF has been called out, officers of that portion of the RAuxAF are to take command and precedence with officers of the RAF and of the RAFResO with whom they are serving as if they had been appointed to the RAF in their RAuxAF rank from the date of their being called out, or, if they were promoted whilst called out, from the date of such promotion.
[/quote]
Para 121 refers to ResO Officers, so I’ve omitted it.
Only the circumstances detailed in Para 111(10)(a) or (c) apply to VR(T) Officers - and (a) is much more likely than (c).
Para 111 is about the exercise of command - which in itself is different to the authority of an Officer by virtue of their commission. For example, under normal circumstances, VR(T) Officers are not “in command” - i.e. of Air Force personnel, subject to Service Law - by the definition of QRs(RAF). They are in command of ATC (or CCF) personnel, who are civilians, and not subject to Service Law (yet! - this throws interesting context into the SNCO debate).
Were a VR(T) Officer - on paid duty - to have Air Force personnel put under their command, e.g. members of an ACLO team, Service Instructors, etc. …then they would be in command under QR(RAF) 111(10)(a); and would have full powers of command commensurate with their substantive rank (i.e. Fg Off).
Command is separate issue to that of the authority of an Officer by virtue of their commission. Other than in the circumstances detailed above, a VR(T) Officer could not lawfully exercise command over Air Force personnel (i.e. give orders); however, they are still a commissioned officer, and could/should exercise their authority accordingly (in an appropriate way). A good example would be correcting an Airman who failed to salute - that is a normal responsibility for any commissioned officer (regular or reserve), and is a duty placed upon an officer in their commission “to maintain good order and discipline”.
For those who would cry “walt”, please notice my careful wording above - “maintaining good order and discipline” does not mean stamping, shouting, and the whole ‘do you know who I am’ routine. It may - and in most circumstances should - be nothing more than a quiet word to educate the individual(s) in question.
Cheers
BTI
BTI, yes, that’s it, plus a little more regs info (which I’ll add when I get the chance…am currently suffering from day-job overstretch).
And Gunner, my simple statement that the ‘authority is not delegated’ was my recent recollection from notes recently taken at ATF.
wilf_san
Did the staff at ATF quote from a source or was it only their personal ‘take’ on the subject?
Surely, if as VR(T), if you are involved somehow with regulars, and you feel the need to exercise some kind of perceived or otherwise legal power over the regular, then surely you have cocked up big time in the run up to that thought? Come on people, surely, given what we do we should never need to consider this!
I think the only main time would be camps, and then when ACLO team oversteps the line in what they are doing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk