It is my understanding that the ACO wanted to go down the route of having our OCdt “proper” RAF-style officer cadets but found that they were unable to do so and are stuck with what we have at the moment.
One suggestion I have heard banded about was to have Plt Off braid on a white backing and that seems by far the most sensible approach.
As Incubus said, the ACO wanted to go the whole hog but there was some issue with it. I spoke to ATF about it and the regular personnel guy at HQAC and they said that it was due to the date of commissioning I believe. They suggested why not defer the date of commission til after they’d been to ATF, but that didn’t get taken up for some reason.
Can’t remember the exact wording, but ACO officer cadets are saluted.
That will make them feel much better I’m sure. And so we have another ACO oddity where we are different from the rest of the RAF… Should we therefore pull up Regs for not saluting our Off Cdts?
Date of commission should be irrelevant, I was commissioned at the start of IOT but everyone in my position knew we were effectively Off Cdts and therefore would not be saluted. It sounds very much like someone is concerned that the ACO Barrack-Room lawyers might complain that they are commissioned and therefore entitled to all that comes with it!
But RAF Officer cadets dont hold the rank of pilot officer the rank they hold is Officer Cadet it what is on the MOD90 where as VR(T) are pilot officers now am I just being a bit daft as that seems simple enough to me…
Which is exactly how it should be: we are not the RAF. If anything, the VR(T) seems to be the oddity 
Absolutely not, because it is not their fault that we have ended up with a half-arsed solution to a perceived problem and I’d be surprised if those passing through IOT learned an awful lot about the ATC and how we differ from the RAF.
If our officers were able to go through a proper Officer-Cadet stage then they should be dressed as, and treated as, RAF Officer Cadets (A/Plt Off).
This does not appear to be possible and our officers are commissioned from appointment and gazetted as Plt Off from that point. Logically those officers should wear the normal rank of Plt Off and act as such just as they used to, but somebody has decided that we need to paint them up as novices prior to OIC. For us to dress them as RAF Officer Cadets would not be in keeping with their true status.
We should be asking why there is seen to be a need to daub white on our pre-ATF personnel. Are we trying to humiliate the wearers into getting onto their mandatory ATF course ASAP to detract from sloppy personnel management at squadrons and wings?
Yes, you are.
Don’t forget the RAF before the VR(T) bit.
How the ACO appoints its officers and then subsequently promotes them through the very early stages of their ‘careers’ should be no different from the parent Service
Yes, you are.
Don’t forget the RAF before the VR(T) bit.[/quote]
I’m not in the RAFVR(T) and if I have my way I never shall be. Our officers may be at the moment but that is neither my concern nor my point.
The the ATC is not the RAF; sure, it is quite tightly linked with it (too tightly in my opinion) but it is still a different organisation with different goals and different needs, albeit under the direction of the MOD / Air Command.
(I’ll leave any nuance up to BTI/Wilf)
We are not The Royal Air Force, we are A Royal Air Force…
Then you, Sir, are in my opinion not qualified to comment.
As the oldest independent Air Force in the world, I think you’ll find that we are indeed THE Royal Air Force, although there are many other Royal Air Forces. By your argument, would you therefore say that the Royal Navy is a Royal Navy rather than the Royal Navy? Flago comment? However, I will leave deliberations of this type to answered by the sage who is Wilf San.
Then you, Sir, are in my opinion not qualified to comment.[/quote]
Fortunately your opinion in the matter counts for nought 
Ooh, nerve, touched. Not my intent.
My comment was to point out that those involved in officers’ appointments and career progression in the ACO are, and should be, commissioned officers in branches of the RAF, not ACO WOs and SNCOs whose opinions, in this instance, are unfortunately just that.
Guys, I’m liking the enthusiastic debate on this issue and the wider policy implications but lets keep it civil and on topic. Cheers.
How hard can it be? This question was answered in Posts 2 & 3 of the thread.
Despite the subsequent conjecture, the Individual is Commissioned from date of OASC and therefore saluted/afforded compliments.
HQAC even provide a letter stating this to the successful individual and allude to the anomaly of a Commissioned Individual wearing Off Cdt White tabs within the ACO causing confusion. They even provide an IA drill - i.e. don’t get excited by people being confused (and not saluting) and getting your knickers in a twist.
HQAC would of gone down the ‘proper’ Off Cdt route if they could (which Wilf spelt out some time ago). However, (lets face it) they needed an incentive to get people to go to OIC - so the white tabs of doom was the (logical imo) stick chosen.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=12603]I don’t want to speak for him, but concerning ‘OCdts VR(T) are actually Plt Offs’ it looks like the point chaz is making is so are Officer Cadets in the regular RAF.
Anyway, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all people going uniformed staff, be they cadet, CI or bloke off the street, should start out as AC(ATC).[/quote]
Things might have changed in the intervening 23 years, but I don’t believe so… As an RAF Officer Cadet I held the equivalent rank of Aircraftsman until graduation. I.e. not commissioned.
As has been pointed out, the RAFVR(T) has a totally different progression through officer cadet to officer.
[quote=“GOM” post=12906][quote=“tango_lima” post=12603]I don’t want to speak for him, but concerning ‘OCdts VR(T) are actually Plt Offs’ it looks like the point chaz is making is so are Officer Cadets in the regular RAF.
Anyway, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all people going uniformed staff, be they cadet, CI or bloke off the street, should start out as AC(ATC).[/quote]
Things might have changed in the intervening 23 years, but I don’t believe so… As an RAF Officer Cadet I held the equivalent rank of Aircraftsman until graduation. I.e. not commissioned.
As has been pointed out, the RAFVR(T) has a totally different progression through officer cadet to officer.[/quote]
Pretty much what I said
There is no definitive documentation as with a lot of things in this outfit. It took a white lie for me to wear my uniform, let alone be saluted. Get things in order is my comment - less about getting rid of “RAF jackets for cadets” and more about sorting this stuff out is my message to those in charge.
[quote=“GOM” post=12906][quote=“tango_lima” post=12603]I don’t want to speak for him, but concerning ‘OCdts VR(T) are actually Plt Offs’ it looks like the point chaz is making is so are Officer Cadets in the regular RAF.
Anyway, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all people going uniformed staff, be they cadet, CI or bloke off the street, should start out as AC(ATC).[/quote]
Things might have changed in the intervening 23 years, but I don’t believe so… As an RAF Officer Cadet I held the equivalent rank of Aircraftsman until graduation. I.e. not commissioned.
As has been pointed out, the RAFVR(T) has a totally different progression through officer cadet to officer.[/quote]
I’d be inclined to agree with you, but since Chaz is a serving RAF officer and was quoting from his own paperwork I don’t really feel qualified to tell him otherwise…
What I cannot get my head round is why? I refer the collective to my earlier comment:
The RAF will commission some from the start of IOT, but they are to all intents and purposes no different from the ‘standard’ officer cadet who gets commissioned at the end. What makes the RAFVR(T) so different?
What I cannot get my head round is why? I refer the collective to my earlier comment:
The RAF will commission some from the start of IOT, but they are to all intents and purposes no different from the ‘standard’ officer cadet who gets commissioned at the end. What makes the RAFVR(T) so different?[/quote]
The RAFVR(T) is very different as it doesn’t have the rank of OCdt - this is purely an ACO rank and technically it should be OCdt (ATC) (Which ironically would be a easy solution to all of this). The lowest rank in the RAFVR(T) is Pilot Officer.
The why is probably due to this fact and the complications of changing the rank structure for the VR(T). I am speculating a bit here but I believe this is one of the slight snags with SNCOs being appointed into the VR(T). Also VR(T) officers do not swear an oath to the Sovereign unlike regulars, again something to do with the fact we are appointed direct to commission status.
Regarding the definitive documentation regarding this, I think someone mentioned it was in their letter of appointment - you can’t really get more official than that as its a written, signed and dated order.
Sorry, old chap, maybe I’m being thick, but I don’t understand that. Where else do the RAFVR(T) serve other than in the ACO? So what are the newly-appointed, yet to be trained ‘officers’ with white tabs called? And OCdt (ATC) would add yet another confusion.
Don’t really get that either. So the direct appointment means you don’t swear an oath? I was appointed directly to a Regular commission and swore an oath to HM.