So I see there is new approved staff Tie for SNCO/WO…and tbh, it does look good, however it appers it will be on sale via,Air Cadet Connect, Im not adverse to purchasing suh an item but im not prepared to py a further £10 subscription just to be able to do so.
Mind you I hve a perfectly good RAF (regimental) tie that due to my previous service im perfectly entitled to wear.
I don’t like the background pattern. I think it should more closely match the VR tie. Officers shouldn’t wear the RAF tie as there is an actual VR tie, so an adaption of that would have been better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where does it say that?
Where does it say that?[/quote]
Probably nowhere. But it would make sense as an unwritten rule. We are all technically commissioned into the RAFVR…
Where does it say that?[/quote]
At one time this most certainly would have been the case, but now the world (and the Air Force) has changed.
In a sense, over an extended period (if not post-WW2, then certainly post Cold War) the ‘inaccurate’ public shorthand definitions of what the term ‘RAF’ actually meant in terms of orbats has actually become adopted as the Official Position.
The dividing lines within the Air Force have become much more blurred, with the single biggest contributory factor in this disappearing differential being the numerical draw-down in the regular force. I personally find it all rather surreal, having been hatched out of my egg back in an era where there were hundreds of thousands of airmen and airwomen, three or more Command formations, and gallons of Groups.
I now try and resist the temptation to ever try and re-educate or inform people that confidently assert that Grandpa was ‘called up to serve in the RAF’ during the war. Any attempts to explain the meaning of the letters RAFVR genuinely meant in that era (despite the absolute truth of the matter - and their eternal significance engraved upon war memorials, stamped on dog-tags or written upon a Stalag Luft list is increasingly misunderstood in the shorthand summary we call history.
Ironically (in the context of this extended grumble) I’ve met a number of WW2 RAFVR veterans that were very keen to join the RAF once peace was declared. It was not unusual for those individuals to be politely declined: for the RAF knew the truth, as was the actual case then, that the RAFVR, with it’s War Service commissions and Sgt Pilots was most assuredly not the RAF…but simply a major element within the Air Force.
When the time we are in now marches on further, and, just like The Last Tommy, we reach the sad-but-inevitable day of the Last WW2 ‘Erk’, if that person should happen to be ex-AAF, ex-WAAF, ex-RAFVR, or indeed even ex-RAF…It would be good, fair and just, for the VR to be remembered then, too.
Anyway - back to ties. VR ones versus RAF ones. Whilst at one time the very thought of a non-regular Officer wearing such a thing might have resulted in the Guard Commander and a squad of RAFP storming the mess with fixed bayonets, the justification nowadays for observing such a prohibition is much harder to support.
Before I witter on about this any longer (am in bed with a heavy cold, hence me actually being on ACC for a change), I’ve just remembered an RAF ties fact from way back in my dear old dad’s era (so, 1950s RAFNS). At that time, Air Force men in semi-formal civvies tended to wear Squadron ties (all ranks)…In fact, if I remember the comment from a crusty old FS “the only person that should ever be wearing an RAF tie is MRAF”.
Anyway, I’d say currently, wear either/or, with pride. But never forget the RAFVR (and that’s from an ex-auggie, who was brought up to hunt-down and eat VRs !-) )
wilf_san
ps do we have a sample of this WO/SNCO tie design, at which to gaze upon with wonderment? Air Cadet Connect’s online shop has decided not to let me view its wares (probably for the best, as my wallet is broken…does it contain good stuff? The shop, I mean, not my wallet)
[quote=“juliet mike” post=22350]I don’t like the background pattern. I think it should more closely match the VR tie. Officers shouldn’t wear the RAF tie as there is an actual VR tie, so an adaption of that would have been better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
I think I’ll stick with wearing my RAF Regiment tie and if anyone objects, I’m sure it’ll be sorted out pretty quickly.
As always, a thorough answer from Wilf! I agree; wear either with pride and confidence; or in Gunner’s case, wear any one from three, or even four if you inclde the multi-coloured and Regt crest!
The problem is that as it isn’t uniform, these ties are not governed by any regulations and technically anyone can buy them and wear them. Unfortunately, we have a lot of the ‘you can’t wear that/do that because you’re not in the RAF’ types on here though.
As an interesting point, which I have no doubt Wilf will know, a fellow MP once asked George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy, when he had served in the Guards and was taken aback when Thomas said he hadn’t. By all accounts, Thomas simply liked the colours and bought the tie not knowing there was any other signifcance.
Ah! The old Depot fighting tie!
Sorry what? There are other ties? For civvy use yes? Links?
Ah! The old Depot fighting tie![/quote]
I do like the ‘Depot fighting tie’, precisely because it doesn’t give the partly-informed viewer any simple clues as to the wearer being a probable Gnr extraordinaire. The crested ties, with the crossed bang-sticks-and-tiara, look really good, but are too obvious.
Another Air Force tie anecdote has just arisen from the depths of my back catalogue (I blame the cough medicine). This, of course, falls into the category of all those insightful certainties that are screamed at you by the kind, thoughtful Zen Masters known as “DIs”
THE SCENE; A parade square in the depths of RAF LINCOLNSHIRE, late in the Airman Production Factory process. Not a Monday morning, but a Friday afternoon. Guardian angels are more prevalent on Friday afternoons, for some curious reason…
(A hush falls over the already-silent flight, who hold their breath expecting the wrath of heaven to fall upon them all, apart from one expectant and naive LAC)
(Everyone in the flt tenses up, ready for the screaming to start…apart from one trusting youth)
wilf_san
I might buy one and wear it - just to annoy the SNCO types who will undoubtedly cry, “BUT IT’S FOR SNCOs AND WOs ONLY SIR…”
Then i’ll spill some G+T on it.
Does anyone have a link?
Prune, possibly not the best of plans.
Anyway, come on OP, link or pic!
A sudden thought: since there isn’t currently an officially-separate WO/SNCO cadre (ie they are part of the ATC), in what way is this design not an ATC tie? So why couldn’t a fully-fledged CI or aspiring Cadet seek to wear one?
And… doesn’t the design of a separate design fly in the face of the democratically-interpreted desire of WOs/SNCOs to be collectively re-brigaded into the VRT?
wilf_san
As attached, I actually like that it’s the same generic tie that many of the trade ties are (RAF tie with logos scattered over it).
It means that the VR style tie remains solely for the VR.
[attachment=199]image.jpg[/attachment]
Wonder if it’s:
I’m getting the design idea, obviously based upon the ATC adult staff TRF. But this has reminded me that irrespective of what direction the design slants in, it does suffer from the apparently-universal niggle that the tie design is actually upside-down for colour sequence. The adult staff TRF actually has it the correct way round, unlike most current RAF civvie ties.
Anyway, it looks not too bad, even if it has (or hasn’t) got these minor issues.
wilf_san
[quote=“wilf_san” post=22380]Wonder if it’s:
it does suffer from the apparently-universal niggle that the tie design is actually upside-down for colour sequence.[/quote]
Cannot be unseen and will forever bug me…
Cheers, wilf 
[quote=“Jonay1990” post=22476][quote=“wilf_san” post=22380]Wonder if it’s:
it does suffer from the apparently-universal niggle that the tie design is actually upside-down for colour sequence.[/quote]
Cannot be unseen and will forever bug me…
Cheers, wilf ;)[/quote]
Maybe the almost-universal standard tie design ‘error’ makes for a more aesthetically pleasing effect? Not convinced, though, as the new WO/SNCO ATC correct colour sequence, set TRF-wise looks pretty smart.
Sorry Jonay1990!
wilf_san
To be perfectly honest I agree with wilf. Since the falcon is the badge of the Air Training Corps I can not see how anyone can mandate that it be an “SNCO/WOs tie”. Regardless that it’s used in that awful SNCO ‘TRF’.
Very clearly this design would be appropriate for any member of the ATC, which I’d consider extended to commissioned officers as well if they wish since they are serving with the ATC.
I’d not heard anything about Air Cadet Connect. We were asked directly if we would like to purchase “one (or more)”. Perhaps this was simply to gauge the market before pushing with the Connect thing, or perhaps there is to be an alternative order route?
Personally, I declined purchasing one at a likely price of £10-£15; and I certainly wouldn’t have been purchasing more than one!
Who in their right mind needs two identical ties!? Especially a design of very limited appeal.
I’ve not had a single occasion in the past three years at least where I would have worn such a tie. No sense in wasting money.
I have a RAuxAF tie… it’s a nasty polyester thing and not one person has ever recognised it…
Didn’t know there was such a thing. Does it look like this?
Not too bad a design. At least the colour sequence is correct.
Aha! It slants 045/225…like new new ATC WO/SNCO one…
wilf_san