Officer Cadet RAF VR(T) - Salute or not?

Chief_Tech · 8 November 2013 14:30

cygnus maximus - sorry for any confusion I was posting whilst tired (which never helps) - my point was that the Rank of Officer Cadet within the ACO is a rank invented for and by the Cadet Corps not the RAF. The bit regarding Oaths was something I was told/heard and was why with the RAFVR individuals are substantively a pilot officer and not an airman (and why changing that might get very complicated)

This topic does seam to be one that regularly crops up as found an old post in the achives (it also answers the documentation problem)

Officer Cadets and Saluting ?? Sept 2012

cygnus_maximus · 8 November 2013 16:00

Not an issue old chap and thank you for explaining.

My gripe with all this is that whilst I fully support bringing Off Cdt rank into the RAFVR(T), we (as in the ACO) also seem to have made a bit of a pig’s ear in creating something different to the parent Service and in that, we have the confusion and current debate that we have.

No doubt the subject will come round again next yeart or as and when HQAC change the status.

Shanty · 30 January 2014 08:08

[quote=“Juliet Charlie” post=12567]Hi,

We have a recently appointed Officer Cadet RAF VR(T) on our Squadron and we both believe he should be saluted as we understand he has technically been appointed at the rank of Pilot Officer and therefore holds a Queen’s commission.

However, not everybody agrees. Would some kind person be able to give me a quote or a policy document indicating whether this person should be saluted or not, so I’d be able to clarify this matter.

I have found a topic saying he should, but I know this may be subject to change so I’d like to get the most current gen.[/quote]

As a recent OASC resident, an email was sent out by the CACWO saying officer cadets should be saluted because they are gazetted upon successful completion unlike regular RAF

zinggy · 30 January 2014 08:19

[quote=“Shanty” post=15391][quote=“Juliet Charlie” post=12567]Hi,

We have a recently appointed Officer Cadet RAF VR(T) on our Squadron and we both believe he should be saluted as we understand he has technically been appointed at the rank of Pilot Officer and therefore holds a Queen’s commission.

However, not everybody agrees. Would some kind person be able to give me a quote or a policy document indicating whether this person should be saluted or not, so I’d be able to clarify this matter.

I have found a topic saying he should, but I know this may be subject to change so I’d like to get the most current gen.[/quote]

As a recent OASC resident, an email was sent out by the CACWO saying officer cadets should be saluted because they are gazetted upon successful completion unlike regular RAF[/quote]

Technicaly the officer isnt saluted the commison is…

wokkaman · 30 January 2014 16:59

Yes saluted, there was an order following the parent service, however someone challenged that they are commissioned before going to Cranwell!

chaz · 30 January 2014 21:22

Missed this thread for a while… I still stand by my previous point: regardless of who they are, someone please re-write the JSP so you either salute any Off Cdt, or none…

…or don’t have VR(T) Off Cdts at all and call them Acting Pilot Officers…

zinggy · 31 January 2014 08:57

[quote=“chaz” post=15423]Missed this thread for a while… I still stand by my previous point: regardless of who they are, someone please re-write the JSP so you either salute any Off Cdt, or none…

…or don’t have VR(T) Off Cdts at all and call them Acting Pilot Officers…[/quote]

If that happens I will eat my shoe make way to much sense!

I have recently seen a VR(T) Off Cdt try an pull up a Reg RAF NCO on not saluting her what ever you do DO NOT DO THIS EVER lol

Plt_Off_Prune · 31 January 2014 17:56

Why not?

incubus · 31 January 2014 18:21

Because it isn’t the airman’s fault that we’ve got a messed-up badging system and the officer will come off as a throbber.

Plt_Off_Prune · 31 January 2014 19:50

I misread that as VRT officer - sorry. I’ve got to stop drinking in the mess at lunch on a Friday.

bti · 1 February 2014 18:35

Late arrival into the debate (if it is such):

[quote]tmmorris wrote:
The RAFVR(T) is a formation of officers only and cannot contain non-commissioned personnel, hence the lack of progress on SNCOs. OCdts VR(T) are actually Plt Offs, and their commissioning scroll will be back-dated accordingly[/quote]

Ahhhh… the old chestnut!

There is nothing preventing ORs serving in the RAFVR(T), other than the fact that it has been “Officers only” by default since the Training branch was formed in 1941 (and “re-formed” in 1947 - Wilf_San?). The branch was created specifically for Officers serving with the ATC, and its governing regulations have reflected this ever since, i.e.

AP3393 Vol.7 Regulations for the Reserve Air Forces (TCOS for RAuxAF/RAFR Officers & refers the reader to AP1919 for VR(T) TCOS)
AP1919 Chapter 3 (TCOS for RAFVR(T) Officers)

ORs served in the “wider” RAFVR 1936-1997, and still serve in RAFVR(UAS) and RAFVR(DTUS) …therefore there cannot be a legal impediment to ORs serving in a branch of the RAFVR.

The issue is the governing regulations for the branch.

Changes would be required to AP3393 Vol.7 & VR(T) TCOS in AP1919, under the authority of Section 4 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (which allows the Defence Council/RAF to amend any regulations pertaining to the Reserve Forces) …then ORs (i.e. OCdts, SNCOs & WOs) could serve in the RAFVR(T).

However, this would open up several cans of worms:

Non-commissioned personnel would need to be attested (which include the administration of the oath of allegiance).
There is no standardised selection process (yet) for SNCOs & WOs, therefore there is a potential quality issue across the ATC.
Further to the above, in the RAF, 20 year old SNCOs (Aircrew) are carefully selected and trained so that they conduct themselves and handle their authority accordingly, and this is not the case (currently) in the ATC. Bearing in mind that someone could have served 10-20+ years in the RAF (or RAuxAF for that matter) to make Sgt, FS, & WO - this is a big issue.

To answer the riddle as to why AWOs were made ATC not RAFVR(T) when the rank was first introduced, one would have to try and track down the relevant archives (if they exist) in the National Archives, at HQAC, or Air Command. A starting point might be the minutes of Air Cadet Council meetings from the time (when was the rank of AWO introduced?) and work backwards from there.

I suspect - from an administrative point of view - we’re into the usual “its always been this way” territory. Just because something has always been a certain way does not necessarily mean there is anything preventing it being done another - other than organisational culture.

Back on topic - VR(T) OCdts are saluted since, as others have said, one is appointed to a commission from the date of selection, and is therefore technically a “pre-graduate” Officer, rather than a non-commissioned Officer Cadet. There was a policy update to this effect some time ago - I’ll try and find it.

Cheers
BTI

Racing_Stick · 1 February 2014 20:11

What a shame if this is the case. Smacks of Big Boys wanting their own little club.
Personally I think it should be brought in for SNCO’s. All those who have Regular Service in the SNCO rank can go in as Sgt. If they held higher rank then this should be dealt with accordingly.
Those that have not had Regular SNCO service but have had service of some type should be brought in as Sgt’s but with a caveat that they have to complete the SSIC (which should be more strict and longer) within the 12 months now stipulated but still be wearing those white tabs for at least 2 years.
Anyone coming off the streets with no service experience or worst, those that go straight to adult uniform staff from cadets should be stipulated as SAC’s and earn their way up. This way you get the better quality of SNCO. They have had to earn it.

juliet_mike · 1 February 2014 22:45

[quote=“Racing Stick” post=15466]What a shame if this is the case. Smacks of Big Boys wanting their own little club.
Personally I think it should be brought in for SNCO’s. All those who have Regular Service in the SNCO rank can go in as Sgt. If they held higher rank then this should be dealt with accordingly.
Those that have not had Regular SNCO service but have had service of some type should be brought in as Sgt’s but with a caveat that they have to complete the SSIC (which should be more strict and longer) within the 12 months now stipulated but still be wearing those white tabs for at least 2 years.
Anyone coming off the streets with no service experience or worst, those that go straight to adult uniform staff from cadets should be stipulated as SAC’s and earn their way up. This way you get the better quality of SNCO. They have had to earn it.[/quote]

HOWEVER, a regular SNCO may have no idea what they are doing when moving from a professional paid force to a volunteer youth organisation. They may have no extra experience that adds anything to the Cadet Experience and may come in less qualified than an Ex-Cadet. Why does SSIC need to be longer? Most training relevant to day-to-day cadet activities is completed on the job or at Wing level (1st Aid, BELA, Shooting Quals, MOI etc). ATF have no more idea of how to run a cadet squadron than a current serving OC. What all new staff need is Cadet Experience, not a 4 week training course on how to march up and down.

Racing_Stick · 2 February 2014 00:25

[quote=“juliet mike” post=15475][quote=“Racing Stick” post=15466]What a shame if this is the case. Smacks of Big Boys wanting their own little club.
Personally I think it should be brought in for SNCO’s. All those who have Regular Service in the SNCO rank can go in as Sgt. If they held higher rank then this should be dealt with accordingly.
Those that have not had Regular SNCO service but have had service of some type should be brought in as Sgt’s but with a caveat that they have to complete the SSIC (which should be more strict and longer) within the 12 months now stipulated but still be wearing those white tabs for at least 2 years.
Anyone coming off the streets with no service experience or worst, those that go straight to adult uniform staff from cadets should be stipulated as SAC’s and earn their way up. This way you get the better quality of SNCO. They have had to earn it.[/quote]

HOWEVER, a regular SNCO may have no idea what they are doing when moving from a professional paid force to a volunteer youth organisation. They may have no extra experience that adds anything to the Cadet Experience and may come in less qualified than an Ex-Cadet. Why does SSIC need to be longer? Most training relevant to day-to-day cadet activities is completed on the job or at Wing level (1st Aid, BELA, Shooting Quals, MOI etc). ATF have no more idea of how to run a cadet squadron than a current serving OC. What all new staff need is Cadet Experience, not a 4 week training course on how to march up and down.[/quote]

Totally disagree.
I came into the ACO after a full military career and was highly respected by many for what I knew, could bring to the ACO and the experience I could offer as guidance to the cadets. I also find your comment that ex-Regular SNCO’s will be less qualified than an ex-cadet laughable. Wake up!
Virtually every ex Regular who joins the ACO now will be doing so carrying experience of combat, pressurised working, patience, calmness and leadership simply because of the deployments involved in being a serviceman nowadays. Please, show a bit of respect!
SSIC needs to be longer because the non service personnel that were on mine were appalling as far as drill, saluting and uniform was concerned. We are in a uniformed organisation. A uniform that mirrors us to the regular forces and as an ex-serviceman, I would be ashamed to see staff looking like they did.
True enough a lot can be learnt as far as day to day goes in a Sqn, but SNCO’s are supposed to be an example and they cannot be that if they look a bag of poo! No one mentioned ATF running a Sqn. ATF are there to prepare staff for what will occur as part of their status as SNCO’s. Something they do very well. Nevertheless, clearly 4 and a half days is not long enough to get the basics done.
4 weeks is ludicrous and totally impossible to manage or logisitcally sustainable.
However, 5 days and then a further three or four weekends at WHQ under the WWO might get some of the SNCO’s who are still having a problem, sorted. I also think comparing the hard work carried out by the staff at ATF as something as cynical as a “training course on how to march up and down” is not very professional.

Racing_Stick · 2 February 2014 00:26

I also think that perhaps the Mods might want to get us back on topic.
Apologies.

bti · 2 February 2014 10:05

Sorry - still OT - but, perhaps controversially, I still think the ACF have got their training delivery model right with uniformed “Potential Instructors” (as has been mentioned elsewhere I think).

Select uniformed staff based on their potential (like the regulars) - then put a uniform on them ASAP so they can act in a uniformed capacity (under supervision) whilst they gain experience and complete any mandatory training at either Wg or Rgnl level, then have a “finishing course” at ATF and confirm them in appointment (i.e. on probation until this process is complete). This process should be a mandatory 6 months minimum and 18 months maximum.

So much of the training that is delivered at ATF could be delivered at Wg/Rgn (if standardised), e.g.

Safeguarding
H&S
MOI
Basic ATC & RAF GSK
Drill
Discipline procedures
Dress regs
etc.

The current process is - IMHO - a complete waste of ATF’s time, resources, and expertise …ATF should be a finishing course which injects the “RAF” into the ATC and the course should concentrate on delivering training/experience that cannot be delivered elsewhere and by others, e.g. core values & standards based leadership, etc.

Rant off.

Cheers
BTI

Baldrick · 2 February 2014 18:43

[quote=“Racing Stick” post=15477]Totally disagree.
I came into the ACO after a full military career and was highly respected by many for what I knew, could bring to the ACO and the experience I could offer as guidance to the cadets. I also find your comment that ex-Regular SNCO’s will be less qualified than an ex-cadet laughable. Wake up![/quote]

Without saying this comment is itself laughable in its absolutism I can offer the exception which proves the rule.

We had a chap join our unit, ex-regular Army having served in all sorts of trades from recruit training to the AGC (He lost a leg at some point and was given a non-deployable role.) He was a keen CI, busy, did a lot of good.

The moment he put a uniform on as a Sgt he became an absolute a*se. He made the squadron hell for the cadets, treating them exactly like Phase 1 recruits. Uniform inspections nightly (without [strike]in-depth[/strike] basic knowledge of ATC dress regs,) clear favouritism given to some, shouting at them constantly and in the end verbally abusing them all. We got rid of him.

He was absolute proof that knowledge of the regular forces and how to treat volunteer adult servicemen does not automatically make you the perfect CFAV. He knew a lot less than a CWO would about the organisation and did not like the fact that whenever the OC/WO was away (no officers on the unit before I came back) he would leave the 22 year old ex-CWO in charge of the unit and not him.

I’m not saying that regular experience isn’t advantageous. But your comment is not backed up by the facts.

pEp · 2 February 2014 19:28

Take it to a new topic please, unless you have anything relevant to say about saluting officer cadets.

steve679 · 2 February 2014 19:33

unfortunately I have to agree…I saw recently someone said they’d rather have a ex-CWO as staff than ex regular. far too many SIs think that the ATC is a RAF for younger members, where it simply isn’t…its the ATC, an RAF linked and themed organisation for the youth.

I see all too often SIs or former service men brag about their authority on a situation because of their service…but often has no connection to the life and world of the ATC

like Baldrick I am not saying ex-regulars or SIs are useless but they do need to realize there is a difference in the organisation…the most notable being everyone (Staff AND Cadets) are volunteers and can walk away tomorrow with no consequences (ie we’re not under contract we cant be AWOL) and the age of the “customers” is vastly different to the regulars who have different agendas…going along to join their mates rather than the various reasons recruits join up thus you cant treat people in the organisation the same…

chaz · 2 February 2014 19:59

[quote]
Totally disagree.
I came into the ACO after a full military career and was highly respected by many for what I knew, could bring to the ACO and the experience I could offer as guidance to the cadets. I also find your comment that ex-Regular SNCO’s will be less qualified than an ex-cadet laughable. Wake up!
Virtually every ex Regular who joins the ACO now will be doing so carrying experience of combat, pressurised working, patience, calmness and leadership simply because of the deployments involved in being a serviceman nowadays. Please, show a bit of respect![/quote]

That doesn’t necessarily mean they will adapt immediately to the cadet environment, where those they are supervising and who they have a duty of care will be a bit younger and far less mature in some cases. Yes there are things ex-regulars will almost all bring straight into the corps, but so do those non-regulars who’ve devoted much over many years.

Being an ex-cadet, and back to saluting, at the end of the day there are far more important things than drill, dress and whether an Off Cdt is saluted. What matters is that as many as possible come out of their time in uniform with great experiences, possibly a qualification or two, capable of independent thought, and “better” people at what will almost invariably be a very important time in their lives when they go on to further education or into their careers.