What is the status of ACF adult snecs?
[quote=“steve679” post=17600][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17586]
But conversely there are no upsides. There is little or nothing that an SNCO can do as VR(T) that they currently can’t as ATC.
[/quote]
i ask the board again
…what about NACATC?
these can only be “run” but a Commissions CFAV. is this because of tradition that a CC must be and Officer or is it because as VRT they are “accountable”??[/quote]
I think we would all be making things up to answer that at the moment PERHAPS…
someone with the questionnaire could put it in it if their is a question/commnets box
Interesting topic with lots of interesting and valid point of discussion taking place, I’ll add my two pence worth…
I was asked this question directly by Air Commodore Moulds as one of the early SGT (ATC)'s. My answer then was emphatically, no we didn’t need it. (Please note this wasn’t given out of naivety at the time I had been in the Corps 11 or 12 years at this point, CWO through to 22, 18 months as a CI and some time back in uniform). As I saw it AWO’s had been doing there job quite well within the ATC for many years and didn’t see what advantages it would bring to join the VRT.
However at that time the NCO process was relatively new and I don’t think anyone had envisaged how it would develop. The premise being that direct entry WO’s were not a good idea and some form of progression would benefit the organisation, and it certainly has.
Consider this, pre LASER Review uniform recruitment was probably something like 70/30 in favour of commission, at the outset it probably moved to more 50/50 but I would say that it is probably now more likely 30/70 in favour of SNCO route. (These figures are purely to illustrate a point, I have no access to such records!)
What this means for the Corps is that there are probably more uniformed members of staff but far fewer officers than 10-15 years ago. In reality what this means is that far more Squadrons as run by SNCO/WO’s and far more activities are organised by and run by SNCO/WO’s.
The issue was mentioned above about NACATC and this very well illustrates the point.
Do we need to be in the VRT not necessarily as long as we can be recognised in terms of organising and running activities. It must work for the ACF as it is far more normal for detachments to be run by NCO’s than officers.
So, if given the opportunity of answering the question again now would my answer be any different, yes it would, it would be no we don’t need to be part of the VRT we just need to be recognised as members of staff in the same way that officers are.
From the way the questionnaire is worded and the vibe I got the last time I CAC spoke about it, I’m assuming this is an “are there any genuine objections” type of affair rather than a “Choose which you would like” question.
Thus far I don’t think we’ve come up with any reasons not to move to VR(T). I doubt many people have in the questionnaire either.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=17610]From the way the questionnaire is worded and the vibe I got the last time I CAC spoke about it, I’m assuming this is an “are there any genuine objections” type of affair rather than a “Choose which you would like” question.
Thus far I don’t think we’ve come up with any reasons not to move to VR(T). I doubt many people have in the questionnaire either.[/quote]
So in this case, is the questionnaire a waste of time and just an exercise to make people think they have a voice? From what I remember looking the questions it was asking questions that didn’t really mean anything other than first one. IIRC there was a don’t know option, which suggests not enough information has been presented for me to give an objective answer.
As it seems the mood at the top is, we’re doing it, what happens IF the overwhelming consensus from the questionnaire is NO. If HQAC carried on with what appears to be the masterplan, if those who didn’t want it, potentially walked away or reverted to CI and where would that leave the Corps. I can’t see it happening but if it did, could squadrons suffer the loss of uniformed staff and similarly if VR(T) commissions became CF commissions.
One of the requirements of a change such as this is a grass roots survey. Failure to do one could result in te changes being delayed or postponed
Box has been ticked.
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=17626]One of the requirements of a change such as this is a grass roots survey. Failure to do one could result in te changes being delayed or postponed
Box has been ticked.[/quote]
Failure to do one would not be the fault of myself or several collegues in this wing as I have yet to see copy of this questionaire officialy yet…
The “questions” on the form seem to me to be some of the standard arguments given in support of the change in question.
It may be that this questionnaire is simply an attempt to see how widespread these opinions actually are: are they real or are they imagined?
What difference would bringing the SNCOS into the VR bring?
They could be able to test you for illegal drugs while on duty. You would have to submit to compulsory drug testing like officers have to do now.
[quote=“the silverback” post=17652]What difference would bringing the SNCOS into the VR bring?
They could be able to test you for illegal drugs while on duty. You would have to submit to compulsory drug testing like officers have to do now.[/quote]
Since when?? How do the CDT get names and locations??
[quote=“wokkaman” post=17677][quote=“the silverback” post=17652]What difference would bringing the SNCOS into the VR bring?
They could be able to test you for illegal drugs while on duty. You would have to submit to compulsory drug testing like officers have to do now.[/quote]
Since when?? How do the CDT get names and locations??[/quote]
And just what is the problem with Random drug testing anyway? The current initial military CDT team isaurine sample given at hetime of the visit, There are now many major companiesthat run drug testing policies on their staf,I qiuteAmazon as a case in point…we are dealing with other peoples little darlings and need to ensure that we are whiter than white, especialy following other issues around child protection etc.
When I was with the Army I was stitched upon a gfew occassions to accompany the team when they arrived to be theguy whohad the job of standing in the gents ensuring that samples did actualy come from the person required iwas informedthe normalpolicy was that the CDT teamwould be given a nominal roll of all staff on the unit and could call allor any of them for testing and usualy the main gates would be closed tooutgoing personnelunti the required personnel had given their sample. On someoccassions the teamwouldjust arrive and test the Guardforce andDutypersonnelon others, whole squadrons couldbe linedup in the gymnasium.In the ase of an ATC unit the team couldjust turn upwith alist of uniformed personal as supplied from Wing/Region and thoseon site would from thelist at the timecouldbe tested… these guys willjust turn up without you invite or appointment.
Having said that have any VR(T) personnel actualyever beensubjected tothe random testing…
I’ve only encountered CDT at Nijmegen when I was on the BMCSS a couple of years back.
My only issue with it is the lack of basis for testing non-military personnel and the attitude of the testers that they are always right. It seemed to be an area that it was difficult to get a reliable, informed ruling on and I was very tempted to refuse on the basis that they had no right to demand it 
The concept is sound but it does need to be supported by legislation.
In the years I have been at Nijmegen as a VR(T) none of us have been tested. pre-2012 I don’t know if any where.
CDT at Nijmegen randomly test a few individuals from all the regular or reserve teams. No CFAVs were tested IIRC in 2012 or 2013.
In Nijmegen all service personnel are subject to CDT and 20% of all service personnel are tested. The first year VR(T) were tested was in 2010, the army WO in charge of the CDT team wanted to test all adult uniformed ATC staff but was told that NCO were ineligible for testing for the reason that they were really civilians in uniform. I don’t know about ACF personnel and whether they were tested.
My wife has been tested three times, once as a marcher and twice as support staff. Also the ATC along with the regular support staff in Nijmegen assist with the CDT process whether it is to ensure the correct samples are taken or with the admin.
I can’t really see any problem with CDT, as long as it’s done sensibly (ie requiring every CFAV on an annual camp to report at 0900 on Monday morning is going to cause some issues).
But TBH I’ve never heard of it happening (I’ve never been to Nijmegen) - after all it’s only reasonable to expect us to test whilst actually on duty, and does rather rely on the CDT team actually knowing that we’re there!
Just realised that I must actually know most people on this thread from Nijmegen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote]SVS wrote:
What is the status of ACF adult snecs? [/quote]
Same as our SNCOs/WOs - i.e. legally - civilians in uniform. They are ACF (like ours are ATC) rather than TA (sorry! Army Reserve…) General List B for the Offrs (like we are RAFVR(T))
The arrangements in the ATC and ACF are, at the moment, effectively identical status-wise.
Cheers
BTI
I have to say, having been a massive proponent of VR(T) SNCOs & WOs …now it seems like a real possibility, the more I think about it in detail, the more I become unsure.
Other than for NCA and SNCO Air Traffic Controllers, there is no direct entry for SNCOs in the regular RAF. Equally (unless you were an ex-regular SNCO) there is/was no SNCO direct entry for the RAuxAF or RAFVR(GD) …and NCA and SNCO Air Traffickers have the benefit of weeks of professional training to ease their preparation for holding their rank/status.
SNCOs in the regular RAF and RAuxAF will have served as Airmen and JNCOs for many years before being promoted to SNCO ranks and WO, and have the training and experience to conduct themselves accordingly.
At the moment, if there are issues with any of our less capable, less mature, less experienced SNCOs(ATC); at least they are Cadet Force Adult Instructors, and not serving members of the Reserve Forces …making WOs and SNCOs VR(T) would confer the authority of their rank in the Reserve Air Forces, with the ability to issue lawful orders to, and charge, Airmen and JNCOs junior to them. That could be a dangerous thing - and our credibility in the eyes of the RAF could nose-dive overnight.
How many WOs(ATC) do you know, who really should not hold WO rank? …then imagine those individuals holding the Royal Warrant, wearing the Coat of Arms insignia, and let loose on an RAF station…
Discuss.
Cheers
BTI
EDIT - PS) by the way, as we all know, there are some VR(T) Officers who - equally - should not hold the Queens Commission. This is not an anti-SNCO/WO rant!!
I don’t believe VRT offers do have the powers to charge airmen. This would be the same with SNCO and WO VR(T)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are however a few direct-entry corporal trades (PTI and RAFP)…
Views?
As far as I can tell, ATC NCOs start as Sgt for two reasons:
- We vaguely copied the ACF structure
- To enable them to stay in the mess
I don’t see any reason why (1) should make a difference, and considering how few times I’ve actually stayed in the (officers’) mess on RAF stations I’m really not sure that (2) is really an issue these days either. In 95% of annual camps, I reckon that a Cpl could stay in transit accom (or a tent!) and eat in the JRM.