It is an RAF Commission thing: the TOS of a CF commission would be written differently, as well as standardising commissions across the CF.
You would need to look at what each company’s policy says, however I very much doubt they’d make too much fuss if you asked over whether you are ATC or VR(T).
Surely the point of the thread is to allow people put forward tangible benefits for an individual being VR(T) over ATC, thus an informed decision could be made.
I don’t really know of any.
Does have anyone have any tangible benefits in mind? The questionnaire didn’t have supporting evidence of why the change would make any significant difference to an individual. I have been asked by the SNCOs on my sqn and I couldn’t come up with any, that made a real tangible difference. Mine don’t see the point of change unless it results in something financial and not something essentially giving some extra degree procedural clout for the higher organisation.
The points on the questionnaire raised as questions, are based on vague anecdotal points, that I’ve never heard discussed or mentioned by any SNCOs I know or have known, including myself.
The actual questionnaire only needed one question as I couldn’t see the point of the others. IMO answering yes or no to the first question guided the rest of the answers. If people answered ‘don’t know’ to the first one, it would indicate more information is reqired before making an informed decision.
You would need to look at what each company’s policy says, however I very much doubt they’d make too much fuss if you asked over whether you are ATC or VR(T).[/quote]
Which bit did you not understand? I wouldn’t get it as SNCO. In my region there are two VRT and 4 SNCO. Two of us get extra days, four don’t.
10 days on. Still no sight of it.
Just received mine this morning.
Can’t blame my WWO though, he’s only just returned from abroad in the last day or so.
It is about time the ACO staff became VR(T)
I have been a staff member for 14years CI, SGT (one of the first in the corps) and now officer.
some of those who have posted before seem to have good members of staff but I have met some staff that shouldn’t be
in the corps, and have developed a barrier attitude towards each other.
As a CI I kept being told by fellow CI’s that the uniformed staff were only interested in themselves and not the cadets, and only want the uniform and pay.
As a SGT, on my first camp in uniform, other SNCOs congratulated me and then told me “how it was” we as ATC staff are volunteers the officers are VR(T) are RAF they have to do it, we don’t. I explained in simple terms what the V in VR(T) stood for.
As a Officer I have seen officers with the them and us attitude, and it is not only in my wing, I have seen it through out the Corps.
Why VR(T) instead of ATC…EASY
we are part of the RAF Family, lets be a part of it not some halfway measure of under our rules but not our name.
When we got the Chest badge IDs for the CS95, Officers received “Royal Air Force”.
My WO got “Air Cadet” as he pointed out a cadet is between the ages of 13 and 20 so how can he be a
50year old Air cadet.
as already said the Ammo bit is a “waiver” the mod want military people doing the job and ATC are not - in addition there are rules from the MAA regarding flying, the list goes on…
Has anyone asked the question of are there any tangible negatives to the change?
You know what, if it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and helps cut the “us and them” attitude displayed by some, isnt that enough?
And for the record…
Ammo issue - its an MOD thing, the ruling has gone out that NCOS (ATC) can move ammo, if its not being allowed locally, then its a communication thing.
As far as the Firearms Act goes, I’ts “not my bag” but my interpretation would be that for the purposes of the act any approved member of the ACO (i.e. Officer, NCO, CI) is classed as a crown servant as far as S.5 weapons are concerned, so movement shouldnt be an issue (bear in mind you’ll have a movement order when transporting them wont you…?) So this is a non-issue in my view.
Either way, to save my growing headache, can HQAC/Air Command/Her Maj please make NCOs VRT sooner rather than later?
Cheers
What of CGIs?
It won’t stop a “them and us” between the Uniformed Staff and CI’s though and although I agree with you, it’s this that causes me the most concern - CI’s being left out in the cold, whilst being (and expected to be) an integrally vital part of the machine.
It won’t even stop the “than and us” attitude between SNCO/WO and Officers by those inclined to take such a view because even if they are all in one organisation they will still be officers and WO/SNCOs, with often different focus on things, staying in separate messes etc.
It won’t even stop the “than and us” attitude between SNCO/WO and Officers by those inclined to take such a view because even if they are all in one organisation they will still be officers and WO/SNCOs, with often different focus on things, staying in separate messes etc.[/quote]
Echoing the superiority of Officers over SNCO’s from the Parent Service is not a crime 
{A Joke for those without the ability to determine…}
Name dropping will get you everywhere…
But, seriously, there is a fundamental flaw with this approach.[/quote]
Well done CT - you Win a Prize. Take anything from the bottom 2 shelves
Going 2* allows people to seek redress against the entire ACO (which is right), whilst without it going too far (HMTQ - which is right).
However it does boil down to if the CoC were more forthright in their discipline, consistency and decision making, then it would negate half the issues in the first place.
would a SNCO VRT be allowed to Camp Commandant a Llanbedr or Windermere??
i know it is currently only a Officer that can CC the weeks at the NACATCs is this linked to them being VRT or simply being “officers” in the CC position?
in our Wing we have a mass of CIs and SNCOs as MLs/SPAs and other quals useful for NACATC but always seem to have very few VRTs joining in, often only one to make the week happen…
To answer Noah’s point about CIs…
CIs are apparently the backbone of the organisation…ARE they really???
We can all look at the numbers but look at it closer on a local scale.
How many attend camps (weekend, wing, summer etc)
How many are in your squadron who actively help in training, activities
The parent CI who doesn’t do anything that their precious child isn’t involved in
The ex cadets who the become a CI because they are no use for or interested in uniform service but want to stay in the corps but still act like a cadet
Or the obnoxious annoying CI who knows everything about nothing, nothing about everything, but constantly tells you how it should be done yet has no interest in uniform service because they would be found out…
The ACO needs to actively weed out the CIs who are just their for the sake of it, not really putting a lot into the ACO then you can see the numbers drop to a more realistic level and the position of CI being held in regards that it should be. For some Its like people who apply for officer then fail so get the " booby prize" a SGTs position, this is wrong as it’s differant roles and how does it make SNCOs feel when their position is given out when you fail at officer. A CI is not the position for someone who fails it is a position for someone that wants to be an instructor but not uniformed it’s not a position for a person that fails.
I miss being a CI. And having a beard.
You could always grow a 'tash… would make you look just as silly as a beard… B)
You would need to look at what each company’s policy says, however I very much doubt they’d make too much fuss if you asked over whether you are ATC or VR(T).[/quote]
Which bit did you not understand? I wouldn’t get it as SNCO. In my region there are two VRT and 4 SNCO. Two of us get extra days, four don’t.[/quote]
I do understand, but what I mean is looking at the individual company policy to see what other clauses there are. My employers policy has a “member of recognised national youth organisation” clause and since becoming a CI I’ve had one week’s paid leave for training as I’m adult staff in a youth organisation. It maybe that your company doesn’t have this clause, but it may be worth a look for others or even asking. Does it matter if you are entitled to extra leave how you are entitled?