Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
421

Thanks for clearing all that up Wilf!

wilf_san wrote:

There was a point where that was the case, which is why we’ve ended up with some VR(T) WExOs and even Rgnl Comdts; but such appointments are now being made FTRS posts rather than MSF CS (or at least Rgnl Comdts certainly are - my new Rgnl Comdt - RC(N) - is FTRS). QGIs at ACCGS are also now being appointed FTRS(HC) rather than RAFR(CC).

On the point of RFA96 not referring to the renaming of the AFR/RAFR, as we’ve discussed previously - at length :wink: - this matter was specifically debated in the House of Lords during the passage of RFA96:

House of Lords Reserve Forces Bill debate 28 Nov 95:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1995/nov/28/reserve-forces-bill-hl#S5LV0567P0_19951128_HOL_81

[quote]Lord Craig of Radley
My final point is to suggest, as I did during the consultation period, that now might be an opportunity to petition Her Majesty the Queen to revise the name of the Air Force Reserve. This body is largely drawn from the men and women of the Royal Air Force and is referred to in the Bill as the ex-regular reserve forces. Has the time not come to entitle the formation which they join after their period of regular service in the Royal Air Force as the Royal Air Force Reserve? Adding the word “Royal” to the title would, I am sure, give great pleasure and pride to those ex-regulars in their new situation. If there are good reasons why this suggestion is not a “runner”, no doubt the noble Earl the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships’ House.

Lord Judd
My Lords, at the outset, perhaps I may draw attention to what I thought was an extremely interesting proposition made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that the Air Force Reserve should become the Royal Air Force Reserve. I hope that the Government will take seriously that suggestion and will look at it.

Earl Howe
My Lords, I listened with great interest and care to all the contributions in today’s debate…The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, suggested that there should be a change to the name of the Air Force Reserve to the Royal Air Force Reserve. I note his point with due seriousness. The Bill maintains the formal legal title of the reserve force to which the RAF’s ex regular personnel are transferred as the Air Force Reserve. It does not include the word “Royal”. That is the title it has in the Reserve Forces Act 1980. I believe that it is also the title that it had under the Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917. The grant of the prefix “Royal” is conventionally a matter for Her Majesty. It would be recognised in but not effected by a statute. However, the titles of two elements of the Air Force Reserve include the prefix “Royal”. They are the Royal Air Force Reserve of Officers and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. It is interesting to note, as an aside, that the Air Force Act 1955 has that title without the word “Royal” and refers consistently to the regular air force and air-force law in its provisions.
[/quote]

…and which also makes official reference - in the final statement to the House by Earl Howe - to the RAFVR being an “element” of the pre-1997 AFR :wink:

So - the AFR became known as the RAFR in 1997 by permission of HMTQ - As Earl Howe says, no legislation was required to effect that change.

(note how - in a similar manner - that the Territorial Army has become the Army Reserve without enabling legislation - but in any subsequent relevant legislation (e.g. future Reserve Forces Act) will be referred to as the Army Reserve).

wilf_san wrote:

[quote]And there is (was?) another important aspect to remember, and that’s seniority between the Air Forces.

An RAF Officer (or SNCO, or OR) of the same rank as an RAuxAF Officer is senior to that Officer (or SNCO, or OR); and, in turn an RAuxAF Officer (or SNCO, or OR) of the same rank as an RAFVR Officer is senior to that Officer (or SNCO or OR).[/quote]

As is still the case in QRs - however - a VR(T) SNCO would have lawful authority over regular and Aux Airmen and JNCOs, would they not? …as is the case with VR(T) Officers, although they are not - normally - in “command” as defined in QRs, they still have lawful authority commensurate with their substantive air force rank.

Cheers
BTI

422

One thought that has struck me is the highest substantive rank a VR(T) officer can obtain is Fg Off as this is the lowest commissioned rank you can be held accountable (as well as give parity with the RN officers).

Would SNCO VR(T) be capped in a similar way, possibly at substantive Sgt?

This would ensure that VR(T) FS & WOs would not have authority over regular or Reserve SNCOs.

423

[quote=“Chief Tech” post=20333]One thought that has struck me is the highest substantive rank a VR(T) officer can obtain is Fg Off as this is the lowest commissioned rank you can be held accountable (as well as give parity with the RN officers).

Would SNCO VR(T) be capped in a similar way, possibly at substantive Sgt?

This would ensure that VR(T) FS & WOs would not have authority over regular or Reserve SNCOs.[/quote]

would it not just be easier to insert the words ‘does not have authority over Regular and Reserve SNCO’s’ in the statutary instrument?

and anyway, whats so special about SNCO’s - why is it fine for ACO VR(T) SNCO’s to have theoretical authority over an RAF Cpl driving a WMIK with a 0.5 HMG and 2 GPMG’s or loading a 500lb EPaveway IV onto a GR4 but not the sacred SNCO walking out of the mess with manky shoes and his breakfast running down his shirt?

and people wondered why others were nervous about the potential consequences of the rank-crazed ACO SNCO cadre getting VR(T) status…

424

The apparent move away from VRT commissions for executive post-holders (following the fairly-brief re-orbat) may reflect a required tightening of the needed lines of responsibility/accountability, particularly following the advent of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (replacing the Air Force Acts).

Yes, well, appointed on FTRS(HC) TCoS, to a commission in the RAFResO, as a mobilised member. That could make similar sense as per my interpretation above, for direct chain of command from the Senior Duty Holder downwards. Effectively these posts, then, have been de-civilianised. They would originally have been RAFVR(CC), then what was called RAFR(CC). I suspect there may be no more Civilian Component commissions, so the arrangements have now gone a step beyond this additional (Class Js) RFA96 post-script:

Thanks for locating this quote, bti. It’s very interesting, and may explain the origins of where things have become confused. I don’t want to take this SNCO VR(T) thread too far off topic, so perhaps I’ll open a new thread to further explain my interpretation. However, I will say here that Their Lordships in the Upper House were clearly well-intentioned, but strategically off-target (trust me, there is logic and modern-day relevance to what I’ll put into that thread B) ).

Indeed, and please keep that thought, I’ll come back to that.

Yes, and the blurring of many of the differences between mobilised members of the as-was Regular Army Reserve, and as-was Territorial Army personnel serving on FTRS(FC) TCoS, have contributed to that. Having spoken briefly with a couple of ACF Officers, they believe (quite reasonably) that there will be absolutely no changes to their List B commissions. Note, though, that like our mutual comrades in the SCC (who have honorary RNR status), ACF Officers continue as CFAVs to have a clearer orbat linkage to the active volunteer reserve formations of their parent service than is the case for current (or expanded future?) members of the VRT.

[quote=“bti”]

[quote=“wilf_san”]
And there is (was?) another important aspect to remember, and that’s seniority between the Air Forces…[/quote]

As is still the case in QRs - however - a VR(T) SNCO would have lawful authority over regular and Aux Airmen and JNCOs, would they not? …as is the case with VR(T) Officers, although they are not - normally - in “command” as defined in QRs, they still have lawful authority commensurate with their substantive air force rank.[/quote]

I agree that they would they still have lawful authority commensurate with their substantive air force rank but as is the case with VR(T) Officers, they would not have full command authority delegated to them. At ATF it is definitely stated that this is the intended effect: VR(T) authority is for use within a cadets context only. Consider this: to be in a formal command position, individuals are posted-in to an establishment position, recorded as being so in published routine/formation orders, and therefore acknowledged as having full local powers (irrespective of affected subordinates having taken full note of such a situation: the old adage of “ignorance is no defence” being especially true here).

I believe there is a similarity in the limited/overt authority even currently held by WOs/SNCOs(ATC), and Non-Commissioned Aircrew (hear me out). If WOs/SNCOs(ATC) became VR(T), that would underline such an arrangement. Both Non-Commissioned CFAVs and Non-Commissioned Aircrew have very encapsulated roles; they can both arrive without much notice, are very specialised, and can have very specific high-priority needs. Both have a need for a visual rank-qualifier/identifier, both to empower and to limit them. But crucially, both need a minimum of three stripes for equivalency of basic authority.

Yes, that makes lots of sense (perhaps even substantive Cpl/acting Sgt VR(T) at appointment, with substantive Sgt VR(T) after SSIC) but note again that the RAFVR is usefully/safely at the bottom of the list of Air Force precidence.

I doubt that this specific exclusion would be necessary. Like VR(T) Officers, they would be required to project reasonable levels of discipline and control amongst all service personnel and those that they were directly responsible for. But I don’t think the re-brigading arrangement (if it ever happens) needs to be too complex. Some simple statements could fit the bill, coupled with sensible background formal TCoS.

wilf_san

ps does anyone have live access to eg the current AP3392 to confirm one way or another whether the RAFResO and RAFResA are now no more?

425

[quote=“angus” post=20335][quote=“Chief Tech” post=20333]One thought that has struck me is the highest substantive rank a VR(T) officer can obtain is Fg Off as this is the lowest commissioned rank you can be held accountable (as well as give parity with the RN officers).

Would SNCO VR(T) be capped in a similar way, possibly at substantive Sgt?

This would ensure that VR(T) FS & WOs would not have authority over regular or Reserve SNCOs.[/quote]

would it not just be easier to insert the words ‘does not have authority over Regular and Reserve SNCO’s’ in the statutary instrument?

and anyway, whats so special about SNCO’s - why is it fine for ACO VR(T) SNCO’s to have theoretical authority over an RAF Cpl driving a WMIK with a 0.5 HMG and 2 GPMG’s or loading a 500lb EPaveway IV onto a GR4 but not the sacred SNCO walking out of the mess with manky shoes and his breakfast running down his shirt?

and people wondered why others were nervous about the potential consequences of the rank-crazed ACO SNCO cadre getting VR(T) status…[/quote]

As the saying go words are just wind and can be twisted to suit an individuals situation. You only need one contradicting line in another document and people will be using it to justify everything.

I remember being told as a CI that “under QR, WO have authority over all junior officers” - this is clearly rubbish, but just the sort of thing that will get believed without checking and someone will then take upon themselves to rollock a regular (I believe the actual regulations applies in a very specific set of circumstances and not as wide as above).

The substantive rank situation allows the RAF bod at the receiving end of an idiotic order a get out of jail free card. It also helps the RAF ensure that their regulars aren’t blindly following orders even if the decision making behind the order is sound albeit missing vital info that would be known to the professionals.

I do think that without careful managing, the ACO is going to open a pandoras box of HR/Personnel regulations as people try and use QR as another weapon in trying to build their own little empires

(Could someone please let me know if there is a secret empire being built to actually support & develop the cadets rather than individual egos - I would quite happily join the underground & help that one & it would certainly give me more hope for the future!).

426

i never found it - the thing that makes me believe it doesn’t exist was the experience of sitting in a meeting for 45 minutes with DWC and the whole staff of my Sqn (who i had previously understood to be sound and switched-on members of staff committed to the cadet experience and not really interested in the crap than comes with the ACO…) discussing the upcoming Lees Trophy and the work required to get it, and not hearing ‘this will provide the cadets with…’ once. when i finally asked what the point of this whole exercise was for the cadet experience, i was given nothing but bemused looks…

with regards to the ‘WO’s have authority over X’ type stuff you mention, the answer can only be recruitment - we need to stop recruiting the kind of chod/throbber who would either believe it, or want to believe it, and recruit more of the people who upon hearing such bilge would reply ‘that sounds like utter drivel to me pal, i think you’ve got your head up your bottom - lets go and ask Harry Staish his view…’.

it would solve many problems in the ACO - fewer self-important, ego-obsessed pillocks.

427

Have to say that I am in total agreement with the earliest post about ex cadets given the senior roles in the squadron, with little or no life experience. I have recently done the OASC at RAF Cranwell, unfortunately I was unsuccessful due to my lack of experience with the ACO. Granted I have only been with the organisation for a year and a half.

Maybe my 10 years service in the RAF, during which time I served on numerous operational tours and also my current Police service don’t count for anything. :mad:

428

[quote=“lexycamy” post=20380]Have to say that I am in total agreement with the earliest post about ex cadets given the senior roles in the squadron, with little or no life experience. I have recently done the OASC at RAF Cranwell, unfortunately I was unsuccessful due to my lack of experience with the ACO. Granted I have only been with the organisation for a year and a half.

Maybe my 10 years service in the RAF, during which time I served on numerous operational tours and also my current Police service don’t count for anything. :mad:[/quote]

Nope my friend im sorry to say they dont…there are several ex forces personnel in our Wing who have years of Military experience and qualifications and have goodrange of life experience…mostly the ACO dont accept their Qualifications because the ACO havent taught them, as SNCOsthey are not offered anyform of seniority and Ihave Witnessed very Young and inexperienced SGts FSgts try to tell them how it is…

429

It is frustrating being told, regardless of ones experience in the regulars, that one does not have enough ACO experience. However, look at it the other way around. I have been VR(T) since 1992, but I would not expect this service to be recognised as suitable experience to enable to switch to the regulars. Being an ACO leader and serving as a regular officer are two different roles.

No one doubts you would be able to function as an officer, per se, but does the observation relate to the ACO aspect of the position?

430

Just to be devil’s advocate; The two worst, most dangerous and downright poisonous members of uniformed staff that I have had the misfortune to deal with have been ex-regular RAF, so I’m sorry to say that it’s no guarantee of professionalism.

431

I’m afraid to say that in my years of experience, the same has been noticed - although i’m sure is balanced evenly.

432

What will happen to Gp Cptn Hoy if Scotland vote for independence?
Will we have to junk all of the new recruiting posters, popups and leaflets because he will not be a part of the RAFVR(T) anymore

433

He’ll still be a UK citizen and eligible to serve in the VR(T)

434

Surely he’ll just be part of the Scottish Air Training Corps. ;£

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

435

But will he?

It’s already been mooted that if Scotland gain independence, they will effectively be foreigners. I wonder how this will effect those Scots who hold British passports. Will they have their passports revoked with Salmond having to issue Scottish passports or will they retain their citizenship?

Now I haven’t got the faintest idea about the legal side of things but surely those who live in Scotland and who are in possession of British citizenship; and who have voted for independence, would forfeit their right to be British?

Some may even call it treason…

436

But will he?

It’s already been mooted that if Scotland gain independence, they will effectively be foreigners. I wonder how this will effect those Scots who hold British passports. Will they have their passports revoked with Salmond having to issue Scottish passports or will they retain their citizenship?

Now I haven’t got the faintest idea about the legal side of things but surely those who live in Scotland and who are in possession of British citizenship; and who have voted for independence, would forfeit their right to be British?

Some may even call it treason…[/quote]

would probably work out the same for those who serve in the forces but come from the Republic of Ireland or other parts of the commonwealth.

437

But will he?[/quote]
Yes he will. About the only thing that there seems to be certainty on is that Scots will not lose their UK citizenship in the event of independence but can apply to hold dual nationality. There will be no grandfather rights though, so newborns after the declaration of independence will be Scottish citizens only unless some other factor applies.

438

i thought that was the Grandfather rights

ie held before a change came in so permitted to continue

like the D1 those assigned on passing have kept it but those without remain without unless taking a specific test

439

Personally I’m bored and I can’t wait until next weekend and we know what the jocks want and we can get on with our lives, unless it’s a no and you’re in the SNP and you’re down the job centre.

440

But will he?[/quote]
Yes he will. About the only thing that there seems to be certainty on is that Scots will not lose their UK citizenship in the event of independence but can apply to hold dual nationality. There will be no grandfather rights though, so newborns after the declaration of independence will be Scottish citizens only unless some other factor applies.[/quote]
The way things are going, that other factor could well be UKIP. If the Scots gain independence, goodbye Labour\New Labour\True Liars or whatever they’re called this week, goodbye Cameron et al as the PM who let the Union go. I’m not a political animal (with the exception that all politicians should be put up against the nearest wall!) but the LibCons are going to have a hard time of it in the coming years.