Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
361

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=18384][quote=“The Russian Newspaper, Odessa News, August 1959”]

The English officer is least of all an officer. He is a rich landowner, houseowner, capitalist or merchant, and only an officer incidentally. He knows nothing about the Services and is only seen on parades and reviews. From the professional point of view he is the most ignorant officer in Europe. He enters the Services not to serve but for the uniform, which is magnificent.

The officer considers himself irresistible to the fair-haired, blue-eyed English ladies. The English officer is a beautiful aristocrat, extremely rich, an independent blasé character and loves pornographic literature, suggestive pictures, recherché food and strong drink. His chief amusements are gambling, racing and sports. He goes to bed at dawn and gets up at midday. He is usually occupied with two mistresses simultaneously, one a lady of high society and the other a girl from the opera or ballet. His income runs into several thousands, often tens of thousands a year, of which he keeps no account, being incapable of keeping accounts. The pay he receives from the Government hardly suffices to keep him in scent and gloves.

English officers, especially the young ones, do no work of any kind. They spend their days and nights in clubs noted for their opulence.[/quote]

Sounds ok to me![/quote]I wonder how many inadvertent defections that bit of propaganda caused!?!

362

Locked. I might reopen it later once all the sugar is out of your systems.

363

Unlocked - please can someone post the results email so we can get back on track?

364

I am for the SNCO element of the ACO to transfer from ATC to RAF VRT
YES

I feel that the transferring to RAF VRT will benefit the SNCO cadre
YES

I feel that the cadets will benefit from the SNCO cadre being RAF VRT
YES

I feel that the is a distinct division between current Raf regular and reserve SNCOs and ATC SNCO’s
NO

I feel that with all Uniformed staff as VRT it will generate a better team
YES

I feel that more development opportunities will open up to the SNCO cadre as a result of being RAF VRT
YES

365

The Cmdt favours SNCOs in the VR(T). The hold up is that similar internal transfers are required to happen in the other cadet organisations before it can happen in the ACO.

366

One has to wonder… Why?
Why should it matter what the other cadet forces do? Why should they have to go first?

On a different point…

[quote]I feel that the is a distinct division between current Raf regular and reserve SNCOs and ATC SNCO’s
NO[/quote]
I find that strange. How can anyone believe that there isn’t a distinct division? We do different jobs in a different organization, and have very different ways of attaining SNCO rank.
As I see it, the only way there couldn’t be a distinct division is if every SNCO (ATC) were super professional and on a par with RAF SNCOs.
Clearly that isn’t the case.

367

Well not so long ago on here someone commented that they had heard this would happen sooner than expected and possibly by the end of the year…wonder where that originated.

368

Do you have a reference for this? Policy document perhaps?

I find it a tad strange that the Commandant should choose to go down the road of bringing SNCO ATC into the VRT if she knew that there was something that could prevent her doing so.

369

[quote] Gunner wrote:

[quote]Verges wrote:
The Cmdt favours SNCOs in the VR(T). The hold up is that similar internal transfers are required to happen in the other cadet organisations before it can happen in the ACO.[/quote]

Do you have a reference for this? Policy document perhaps?

I find it a tad strange that the Commandant should choose to go down the road of bringing SNCO ATC into the VRT if she knew that there was something that could prevent her doing so.[/quote]

The Defence Council (so, the Air Force Board in our case) has the authority to decide policy and regulations in respect of the Reserve Forces - and presumably each sSvc decides it own policy/regs? - under the authority of Section 4 of RFA96:

[quote]RFA96 Section 4 wrote:

4 Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces.

(1) Her Majesty may, by order signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, make orders with respect to—

(a) the government and discipline of any reserve force; and
(b) all other matters and things relating to that force,

and including any matter authorised to be prescribed by any provision of this Act or expressed to be subject to orders or regulations under this section.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any order under subsection (1), the Defence Council may make regulations with respect to any matters relating to any reserve force, being matters with respect to which Her Majesty may make orders under that subsection.

(3) Orders or regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases (including different forces), and may include such supplementary, consequential, incidental and transitional provisions as appear to Her Majesty or the Defence Council (as the case may be) to be necessary or expedient.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/14/section/4
[/quote]

So - under the authority of RFA96 Section 4 sub-Sections 1-4 - the AFB can decide policy/regs in relation to the Reserve Air Forces (i.e. the RAFR - inc. the RAFVR - and the RAuxAF) …which of course includes RAFVR(T) T&COS in AP1919.

The only issue I can think of, is that if the Defence Council collectively has decided that CF policy is now - post DYER - to be “joint” via MOD Reserve Forces & Cadets Division (who, of course, are pro-the DYER agenda - and under the direction of VCDS …harmonisation of CFAVs T&COS was of course a key recommendation of DYER, so this is bound to be a sticky subject; and sadly that probably puts it well within the scope of RF&C Div, as opposed to the sSvc COC)

As I see it - unless there is Joint vs. sSvc CF politics at 4* level within the Defence Council (!) - the process is simple:

  1. SNCO/WO(ATC) re-muster approved by Comdt AC, AOC 22 Gp, Deputy Cdr (Personnel)/AMP at Air Cmd; and then the AFB & CAS.
  2. RAFVR(T) AP1919 T&COS re-written to include SNCOs & WOs.
  3. ACP20 etc. updated accordingly.
  4. Changes go into effect from stipulated date.

Simples.

Personally, I think the best opportunity for this to go ahead with little/no opposition from the Army/MOD was missed back in 2007/08 when Gordon Moulds was Comdt …there was serious talk of it being considered back then, but I - personally - believe that he was badly advised by his own Staff Officers, and the issue was kicked into the long grass. Now CFAV T&COS are seen by the MOD through the prism of DYER, I suspect the sSvc route the RAF seems to want to pursue has become significantly more difficult unless there is some serious medal-rattling at 4* level.

Cheers
BTI

370

[quote=“bti” post=20148][quote] Gunner wrote:

[quote]Verges wrote:
The Cmdt favours SNCOs in the VR(T). The hold up is that similar internal transfers are required to happen in the other cadet organisations before it can happen in the ACO.[/quote]

Do you have a reference for this? Policy document perhaps?

I find it a tad strange that the Commandant should choose to go down the road of bringing SNCO ATC into the VRT if she knew that there was something that could prevent her doing so.[/quote]

The Defence Council (so, the Air Force Board in our case) has the authority to decide policy and regulations in respect of the Reserve Forces - and presumably each sSvc decides it own policy/regs? - under the authority of Section 4 of RFA96:

[quote]RFA96 Section 4 wrote:

4 Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces.

(1) Her Majesty may, by order signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, make orders with respect to—

(a) the government and discipline of any reserve force; and
(b) all other matters and things relating to that force,

and including any matter authorised to be prescribed by any provision of this Act or expressed to be subject to orders or regulations under this section.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any order under subsection (1), the Defence Council may make regulations with respect to any matters relating to any reserve force, being matters with respect to which Her Majesty may make orders under that subsection.

(3) Orders or regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases (including different forces), and may include such supplementary, consequential, incidental and transitional provisions as appear to Her Majesty or the Defence Council (as the case may be) to be necessary or expedient.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/14/section/4
[/quote]

So - under the authority of RFA96 Section 4 sub-Sections 1-4 - the AFB can decide policy/regs in relation to the Reserve Air Forces (i.e. the RAFR - inc. the RAFVR - and the RAuxAF) …which of course includes RAFVR(T) T&COS in AP1919.

The only issue I can think of, is that if the Defence Council collectively has decided that CF policy is now - post DYER - to be “joint” via MOD Reserve Forces & Cadets Division (who, of course, are pro-the DYER agenda - and under the direction of VCDS …harmonisation of CFAVs T&COS was of course a key recommendation of DYER, so this is bound to be a sticky subject; and sadly that probably puts it well within the scope of RF&C Div, as opposed to the sSvc COC)

As I see it - unless there is Joint vs. sSvc CF politics at 4* level within the Defence Council (!) - the process is simple:

  1. SNCO/WO(ATC) re-muster approved by Comdt AC, AOC 22 Gp, Deputy Cdr (Personnel)/AMP at Air Cmd; and then the AFB & CAS.
  2. RAFVR(T) AP1919 T&COS re-written to include SNCOs & WOs.
  3. ACP20 etc. updated accordingly.
  4. Changes go into effect from stipulated date.

Simples.

Personally, I think the best opportunity for this to go ahead with little/no opposition from the Army/MOD was missed back in 2007/08 when Gordon Moulds was Comdt …there was serious talk of it being considered back then, but I - personally - believe that he was badly advised by his own Staff Officers, and the issue was kicked into the long grass. Now CFAV T&COS are seen by the MOD through the prism of DYER, I suspect the sSvc route the RAF seems to want to pursue has become significantly more difficult unless there is some serious medal-rattling at 4* level.

Cheers
BTI[/quote]

Couple of points though, BTI.

First, Verges has alluded to other CF having to ‘integrate’ their SNCO cadre [I]first[/I] before the ACO are permitted to follow suit. That doesn’t make any sense as what gives other CF’s the right to do it but not the ACO? He still hasn’t given us a source to underpin his comments.

Secondly, with the above in mind, surely all three CF’s do it simultaneously or none do it at all?

I’m still puzzled as to why the Commandant has chosen to go VR(T) for all staff if she knew there were issues surrounding her doing so. Either she’s been as badly advised as Gordon Moulds may have been or maybe all 3 CF’s are actually heading in the same direction?

Of course, it might well be that that the RAF don’t wish to implement some of the DYER recommendations in relation to CFAV TCOS and want to go their own way? I can’t see a 1* trying to implement something that has very wide-ranging implications if she didn’t have support as far up as 4*…

371

Verges, you seem apparently informed and confident in your belief that ‘the other cadet organisations’ would have to go through such a transition first. I’ll also ask the same question, what makes you think this? Are you aware of the attempts at harmonisation of CFAV TCoS as referred to by bti?

I posted this query on the reborn http://armycadetforce.com/ forum

The response I got back from their forum was nothing like the multiple stacks of replies which we’re used to over here on ACC. Despite the ACF forum going down for ages, I suspect the answer I got back from a commissioned member might actually be representative:

Talon, any comments?

wilf_san

372

I spoke to the Cmdt last week on other matters and this issue came up. I am aware there are moves to harmonise terms of service in all CF’s all of which are different for SNCOs and WOs.

373

that was me

[quote=“steve679” post=19765]
in two separate conversations I heard the mention of ATC becoming VR(T) by the end of the year in the last two weeks…one from a senior office based at HQAC…[/quote]
http://aircadetcentral.net/acc/execs/1263-cfavs-officers-wos-and-sncos-alignments-significance-impacts?start=30#19765

and it originated from discussions heard at RIAT.

i recently bumped into our Wing Cdr who asked me how RIAT when and any significant news worthy events to which i included this piece and he replied indicating that he has seen a “plan of implementation” which makes the transfer in early 2016…so it would seem doesnt matter who you listen to, you’ll get an answer that is either tomorrow or 2020!

374

The Wg Cdr said the same thing to me…

the SCC don’t want to play, and the ACF with their lack of CI and straight in as SNCOs is causing its own issues.
the RAF want ATC SNCOs to the VRT, but the Army dont want the equivalent for their ACF SNCOs…i forget the reasons now but was linked to experience and training prior to uniform, ie with the lack of CI experience someone walks off the street puts on a ACF SNCO uniform is immediate equal to a ARMY SNCO…i can understand the resistance there

375

Our system for VRT is already different to the way SCC and ACF operate, so not sure why we should have to wait while they sort themselves out

376

Gunner wrote:

Exactly my point! (although I may not have made it very clearly!) - and on the face of it, the RAF/AFB/Defence Council has the authority, under RFA96, to re-muster SNCOs & WOs(ATC) into the RAFVR(T), no question about it.

However, the RAF/ACO now faces an up-hill struggle due to the prism of DYER. I agree that there must be top-cover for this project (up to and including Air Cadet Council level? …and whatever happened to putting agendas/minutes of ACC meetings onto SharePoint?), what I struggle to understand is the timing - other than in the wider historical context, which is this…

As the regular RAF gets smaller, its reserves and cadets become an increasingly large part of the overall “service”. The ATC is, and always has been from its inception - as an organisation (rather than the majority of its individual members) - an integral part of the RAF. It is the most integrated of the 4 CFs, and the C2 COC runs from CAS/AFB level down to (commissioned!) Sqn Cdrs.

With the rationalisation of the parent service, draw-down into a single Command, and given now the fact that the ATC (let alone the ACO as a whole) is larger than the regular RAF (and has been for some time); one can perhaps begin to understand why Air Cmd and 22 Gp are taking a closer interest in the delivery and management of the ACO/ATC - I also believe that Tutors 1 & 2 exacerbated this process, since it was the RAF which had to step in and deal with the resulting fall-out and surrounding issues, not the ATC. I think Tutor’s 1 & 2 suddenly prompted the corporate memory of the service to remember that it was ultimately responsible (vicariously, in legal terms) for the ATC/ACO, and all matters pertaining to it.

With other background issues such as Haddon-Cave, High Court judgements regarding service duty of care, the rise of the “compensation culture”, and increasing general aversion to risk in wider society; I think that the current COC now looks at the legal reality that SNCOs and WOs are “civilians in uniform” differently to their predecessors. Given that it has - de-facto - become policy that SNCOs & WOs can be Sqn Cdrs (but as uniformed civilians are not subject to Service Law or QRs), in the current climate, the current COC has had an “eek!” moment; and realised that, as a service, the RAF has no C2 over these individuals. Under the current model, SNCOs & WOs are simply obliged to “play the game”, and only risk expulsion from the club if they do not - the service has no recourse to the actions of this cadre if they are negligent and/or damage the reputation of the service. If need be, Officers can be formally disciplined under Service Law/QRs up to and including Court Martial by the RAF if they deem it necessary - SNCOs & WOs cannot, if the any damage they have done is to the service, rather than a breach of criminal law.

This context, I think, explains the timing of the agenda to move SNCOs/WOs from the ATC and into the RAFVR(T), where the RAF has military C2 of their actions - if need be. Look at it as a “risk reduction” measure, and putting a “control” in place …and since the Royal Observer Corps stood down in 1995, there is no current model of “civilians in uniform” to look to for reassurance that the current system is OK.

Unfortunately, post-DYER, getting such a change through the Defence Council may be the problem - since RF&C Div, under VCDS, seem to be the gatekeepers in relation to certain policy areas; and CFAV T&COS are certainly one of these areas, given DYER’s recommendations and agenda of harmonisation.

I don’t know whether its actually a case of the RAF wants to go one way, and the MOD (led by the Army) wants to go another; but although the timing seems right for the RAF, I think that the idea of the RAF pursuing its own agenda has hit the blocks at the 3* Steering Group level within RF&C Div, and the issue now is whether it can be resolved at 4* AFB/Defence Council level.

But all that’s just my personal opinion, based on knowing how the system works etc. :slight_smile:

Cheers
BTI

377

steve679 wrote:

[quote]The Wg Cdr said the same thing to me…

the SCC don’t want to play, and the ACF with their lack of CI and straight in as SNCOs is causing its own issues.
the RAF want ATC SNCOs to the VRT, but the Army dont want the equivalent for their ACF SNCOs…i forget the reasons now but was linked to experience and training prior to uniform, ie with the lack of CI experience someone walks off the street puts on a ACF SNCO uniform is immediate equal to a ARMY SNCO…i can understand the resistance there[/quote]

These - I suspect - are indeed the competing agendas which are being “discussed” at the level of the RF&C Div 3* Steering Group. The SCC are quite happy as they are, and can’t in any event be compelled to change any aspect of their organisation (other than by the RN using their grant-in-aid as a lever!) since they are part of the MSSC and not the MOD; and - as you say - the Army don’t want their AIs to go down the Army Reserve List B (no longer the TA of course!) route, equivalent to our RAFVR(T).

I too can well understand the rationale for that. I don’t believe that the relationship between the regular Army and the ACF is as harmonious as ours (RAF/ATC) is by and large. Every time I have worked alongside regular Army training teams (who run Outreach / Insight courses as well as assisting with cadet training on annual camps) - in a non-ATC capacity I hasten to add - the relationship has been fractious, and there are few regular (soldiers) who think highly of ACF AIs (or Officers, for that matter). However, that’s just my limited experience, but I would imagine it is fairly representative.

The Army’s concern about experience, training, credibility, etc. is a valid one; and is an issue that the RAF/ATC would also have to address. Since a significant proportion of the ACF’s AIs and SNCOs(ATC) will be ex-cadets without any regular service experience, or cadet’s parents, without service experience and possibly with or without cadet service; the issue would affect us too.

As I have highlighted elsewhere, RAFVR(T) WOs & SNCOs would - like their commissioned counterparts - become automatically become members of a Reserve Air Force (at SNCO / WO rank!), with commensurate powers of command under Service Law and QRs. I hardly need to explain that (other than for the DE branches of NCA and ATC) promotion to SNCO/WO takes many years of service and a great deal of experience, both in the regular RAF and in the RAuxAF. In this context, I can seen DE RAFVR(T) SNCOs (and overnight RAFVR(T) WOs transferring with rank extant from the ATC) going down like a cup of cold sick amongst the ranks (not that that actually matters, in reality, other than it being an issue RAFVR(T) WOs/SNCOs would have to deal with on the ground).

There are other issues which the RAF/ACO would need to address:

  1. Selection …surely appointment would not simply be by the current Wing board model? RAF DE SNCO candidates for NCA and ATC have to attend OASC, so…
  2. Attestation …as Airmen/women, newly appointed RAFVR(T) SNCOs would need to attest. This does not apply to RAFVR(T) Officers, as attestation is not required for an Officer being appointed to a commission (as they are). The Oath of Allegiance is quite a separate matter however…
  3. Training …the DE experience/training issues would need to addressed, and would need to cover the (de-facto) limits of their authority so that this is clearly understood. This is not currently an issue at the moment for SNCOs(ATC), as current arrangements are easily understood - DE RAFVR(T) SNCOs and their place in the world / the limits of their authority? …perhaps not as easily understood.
  4. Service Complaints …until the current post-DYER bun-fight over Officer T&COS and whether or not they can/should make SCs is resolved (and what any replacement redress of grievance system would be), the SC issue is going to apply to RAFVR(T) WOs/SNCOs; since - as personnel subject to Service Law when on duty - they too would also be entitled (as things currently stand) to make an SC.

Also, as I have previously stated elsewhere, WO and SNCO service in the RAFVR(T) also opens the door for proper non-commissioned Officer Cadets (and SNCO Cadets? - like RAF DE NCA/ATC SNCO Cadets during Phase 1 NCAITC at Cranwell?)

All in all, potentially a can of worms in my view - unless handled correctly, and all the relevant issues are addressed. Assuming that all the angles have been thought through, it must be that the RAF/senior ACO believes that the benefits outweigh the potential problems (unlike the Army).

Cheers
BTI

378

One thing Bti, the comment about ex parents cadets or no service applies already to VRT officers so why is it so different from SNCO ?

379

bg wrote:

SNCOs in a regular service, or its reserves (other than small numbers of Direct Entrants - DEs - which in the regular RAF only applies to the NCA and ATC trades), will have many years of service and experience. DE SNCOs, who do not have many years service and experience, undergo intensive training to compensate for this (akin to Initial Officer Training in many respects). NCA recruits undergo 19 weeks of Phase 1 training (9 weeks Halton, 10 weeks Cranwell), before progressing to Phase 2 trade training (Rear Aircrew). DE ATC candidates undertake the same 19 weeks Phase 1, before progressing to their Phase 2 trade training (Air Traffic Control).

The nearest Reserve Air Forces analogy - legally / in terms of status - to potential DE RAFVR(T) SNCOs would probably be RAFR FTRS or RAuxAF DE SNCOs, who must - AFAIK - have been either regular/RAuxAF SNCOs, or a regular/RAuxAF JNCO with a recommendation for promotion. That is a world away from the potential level of training, experience, and (in the eyes of the ranks) the credibility of an ex-cadet/cadets’ parent appointed to service as an RAFVR(T) SNCO. At the moment, said individuals can do little harm as an SNCO(ATC) since they are not serving members of the Reserve Air Forces, and have no authority over Airmen. They are - like their ACF counterparts - Adult Instructors (in the ATC), not Reserve Air Force SNCOs.

So - to answer your question - comparing that situation to RAFVR(T) Officers… the RAF is geared up to deal with, and has a corporate culture of accepting, inexperienced Junior Officers. Indeed, that is why Junior Officers rely so heavily on their SNCOs. What regular Junior Officers lack in experience, they make up for by undergoing 30 weeks Phase 1 IOT, followed by Phase 2 branch (trade) training. RAuxAF Officers, whilst not having the same amount of training, must reach similar standards as their regular counterparts on their Reserve Officers Initial Training.

Clearly the situation is different in the ATC/ACO, since the job is different, but nonetheless - there is, in my view at least, a reputational risk to the ATC (and possibly RAF) in appointing inexperienced civilians with very little training as serving SNCOs in a Reserve Air Force with the status and authority that goes with SNCO rank. The Army share that view, which is - in part - why they don’t want to follow the ACO down the same route for their ACF AIs.

At the moment, if WOs/SNCOs(ATC) don’t look the part, act the part, or are frankly useless - so long as they are not bringing the service into disrepute - the service can nod its head and say “Well, they’re not serving WOs/SNCOs, so it doesn’t really matter” (or words to that effect). The same cannot be said if they become RAFVR(T).

The same applies to Officers of course, and that is why RAFVR(T) Officers who have poor standards or capability get themselves, the branch and the ACO a bad name. Standards should be high, since said individuals hold the Queens Commission, and should maintain the standards and dignity befitting the appointment.

I hope that makes sense. It is not a case of “double standards” for Officers, simply the fact that the parent service (on the ground) will have higher expectations of RAFVR(T) SNCOs & WOs than they currently do of SNCOs/WOs(ATC). The Sergeants & WOs Mess certainly will.

Sorry if any of this is contentious, but those who have service experience, or who have significant experience of working alongside the regulars/reserves, will know this to be true. What is currently the case for RAFVR(T) Officers will become the case for SNCOs/WOs.

I’m not suggesting that SNCOs/WOs will not be able to rise to this challenge, but that the ACO has a long way to go - if we do go down this road - in order to ensure that they can.

Cheers
BTI

380

Spot on, BTI.