If we are starting to give cadets an RAF qualification badge (the aircrew rank slides) then I want my RAF Regiment mudguard because I’m a SAAI and RCO and M Qual lol
1 Like
Are you RMTL though?
BEing able to walk is a big part of getting your mudguard
Totally agreed with the Probationary Instructor idea, cap cadets to U18’s drop the age of application of CWO to 16 (we are recruiting cadets from 12). Then at 20, the “PI” could commission or NCO route whichever they are wish to pursue
No, stop it. This isn’t for any re hashed crazy ideas for removing over 18s or CFAV Cpls or whatever. There are hundreds of threads for that. This is for us discussing the abomination of rankslides we’re about to be forced to issue.
6 Likes
As a cadet this seems highly unnecessary and if this is really the priority in hqac compared to the dozens of other things they could be fixing it’s disappointing if not anything else 
I’d just caution against the easy argument that it’s about “mis-placed priorities”.
There are many people in our organisation who spend a lot of their free time on subject matter of interest, or which is aligned to their capability. Many of them are of course volunteers, and a challenge is orchestrating all that capacity.
Just because it’s not your priority, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. There are many things that need attention at any given time, but if you have people with capacity to work on other things concurrently (particularly if it’s volunteers working on stuff that will never reach that “critical threshold”), it’d be foolish to stop them doing those things just because.
There will obviously be times when people don’t agree with something that happens, and that’s fine. But, it’s not the same argument.
4 Likes
The first question should always be WHY though, and sadly this questions doesn’t appear to have an answer, therefore should be scrapped.
(post deleted by author)
I reckon if the why was communicated with most changes in this org. Most would be like “oh, yeah, ok fair enough”
3 Likes
Well until someone does a freedom of information request and finds out it’s a lie, like “the need to conform on Squadron badges has come from
The RAF” when there are emails proving the opposite is true.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
But what about the drum majors?
1 Like
The way I see it DMs can go a few ways
- New badge in line with policy change (expensive and un-necessary)
- Exempt DMs from the new badge policy
a) when on duty as a DM
b) when in the public eye and not training (wear normal Rank) - Do not wear DM slides in line with policy as no cadet ID
Most likely I reckon is 2b as it allows staff to identify the O/U18 split in training and allows for a use of a traditional badge for a performance, But bear in mind there is no requirement for a cadet DM to wear the badge as is, so I could also see option 3 being invoked by the RAF Dress committee (or whatever they’re called)
Or just slide the drum major rank over a blank cadet / staff cadet rank slide.
Gash though,
If they’d just gone with the RAFP style slide this wouldn’t be an issue, In future I can see DM badges being stored with 2 pairs of Age identifiers for ease of issue
Just checked 1358 and it says
so they might not be allowed to wear an age ID with it
Yeah, that was a bad one. Literally was the opposite. An email from the RAFAC asking to use RAF Ceremonial as the excuse to get us in line.
1 Like
No, Just No, Even WOs in the Army wear 4 Chevrons and a crown, Who made that abbomination?
A flight sergeant probably 
Interestinlgy, there appears to be stitching across the top and bottom of the slide, making it un-usable, the best solution imho