Some of the worst have been retired Officers taking up seats at HQAC and various HQs. We’ve had some truly awful WAdO/WExOs over the years who never really understood the ‘volunteer’ part of VRT.
How predictable!
i agree, the RAF commissions some absolute throbbers… :evil:
my experience of ex-regular RAF personnel serving in the ACO has been limited to, i think, about half-a-dozen that i’m aware of - they seemed to me to be a bit ‘marmite-ish’, either brilliant or utter, utter cretins. ACO rank seemed to be no indicator of quality, and sadly a senior cretin has more impact on the organisation than a senior star…
I think it will be a boost to Tories. Kick Scottish MPs out of Commons, they have their own. Then Tories get bigger majority as quite a few labour seats simply vanish b
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote=“lexycamy” post=20380]
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]
My bold - Sorry to ask but Why on earth would your current police service have any relevance to you becoming commissioned? Also if you are a warranted officer don’t you need the written permission from your Chief Constable to join the VR(T) as it is joining the RAF reserves.
On the flip side, how would you manage the shift nature of being a police officer with the need of presence required by an officer?
Good.
These people may have been good in their old day jobs, but doesn’t neccessarily mean they will be good in the ATC. We’ve had a couple of bloody good AdO/ExO who have come in and used their previous service experience/contacts to good ends and have been sorely missed.
With maybe the exception of Mr Moulds the current Cmdt the ex-service people in the higher leadership, IMO see the ATC as a place to continue playing at being in the RAF / being something they would never have been or in a position they would never have achieved and extend careers, rather than joining a youth organisation that seeks to bring a unique experience to youngsters, staffed by people who work 8+ hours a day and need support and easy to use/access services. I make no apology for my thinking and appreciate that others think the polar opposite.
I’ve worked in private industry for 32 years and the majority of our senior management and board have all “done their time” in the business and as such understand the impact of their decisions at all levels. This doesn’t necessarily mean when they get to the end of their time, they would be as good in another similar business. Similarly just because someone has been in the armed forces, doesn’t mean they wlll be good for / in the cadet forces.
This fact has baffled me why Labour haven’t been unilaterally more vocal about the “no” campaign. If it’s a yes next week they will lose 52 seats, currently held by Scottish MPs, as said effectively making them a spent force politically.
If it is a yes, I can see a frantic debate to redraw constituency boundaries in traditional Labour areas and invent new parliamentary seats.
UKIP still have a way to go, as they still really are effectively a single issue party, because if a referendum on leaving the eu gets that result, I’ve not seen or heard anything from them about afterwards. They, like Salmond and co, will then have to get to grips with actually running things as opposed to the current situation.
So this wasone of the most popular threads a short while ago, there was even talk of it all happening by christmas…butbeverything went quiet and nothing seems to have happened, was it all another attempt to start the wind up that pops up every now and again…?
We’d heard on a thread somewhere that some muppet had decided it would have to be a tri-service cadet force change, and that the ACF were holding out… Or something along those lines. 
Latest I heard was the Air Force wants this to happen, as the current issue is that SNCOs from the ACF are trying employment tribunals because of their status. The change would give them an exemption based on the armed forces act and remove a lot of problems.
Hi, you are right in that its the ACF holding out. An extremely reliable source informed t me that ACF dont see the need. They say that ACF staff know their place in the order of things and that ATC staff are basically RAF wannabes who are more concerned with status than being cadet volunteers, I wonder if this is because ACF arnt directly part of the Army structure? so it’s true that if the ACF were to play ball it would be happening as we speak I wonder if the RAF could go it alone on this?
That is how i understand it.
the ACF are all the equivalent of “ATC” while we have VRT as well.
the RAF want us all as one, and lean towards VRT, not a big move at 50% of our Staff already are.
the Army are against this because it offers the ACF a status that is new to both the CFAV and parent service.
i’ve heard it changes how the ACF will be trained as they will be entitled to certain aspect they are denied as civilians…although i know no more details to expand on this.
Do we have stats to back that up? Bader doesn’t seem to have a report for it and I’m interested to know the proportions of VR(T) to SNCO/WO CFAV to CI in the ATC at the moment.
I seem to recall CIs being by far the biggest proportion of cadet staff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do we have stats to back that up? Bader doesn’t seem to have a report for it and I’m interested to know the proportions of VR(T) to SNCO/WO CFAV to CI in the ATC at the moment.[/quote]
no it was just a figure plucked from the sky based on our Sqn ratio of uniformed staff…we have a 50/50 split
the numbers/% isn’t important the fact is for the ATC transferring those that aren’t to are isnt a headache as a portion already are and so the “unknowns” are known
the ACF’s aren’ts moving to are’s is soemthing new with plenty of “unknowns”/knowns they dont want to allow
[quote=“steve679” post=22280]That is how i understand it.
the ACF are all the equivalent of “ATC” while we have VRT as well.[/quote]The ACF model is very similar to ours, with officers holding TA (Army Reserve nowadays?) commissions and NCOs/sergeants major being uniformed civilians.
The only major difference is that in the ACF both are styled ‘ACF’ - officers wear ACF titles and I’d imagine(?) would have ACF as a post-nom, whereas we’re described primarily by our relationship to the RAF.
AFAIK, ACF Officers would normally be entitled to use the Regiment they are badged to, as a form of post-nominal. For example:
‘Capt Joe Bloggs PWRR’
‘Lt Andy Capp RSigs’
I’m sure Talon can give us the correct version when he’s next on.
So of the impasse continues could the RAF decide to do its own thing in regards to the VRT SNCO cadre. I mean all three cadet services have evolved separately since their founding so it would be business as as usual
You have to wonder why we couldn’t just do our own thing don’t you!?
Why should it have anything to do with the ACF? Let them do what the hell they like and we should get on with our own thing.
Sounds more like it’s because someone’s got a big chip on their shoulder. I’ve met several ACF instructors who are either Army ‘wannabes’, or even failed squaddies.
I don’t think there’s very much difference between our organisations. We both attracted a lot of good people who ‘get it’ and severl spanners who don’t.
We can’t really go our own way because it’s part of DYER, and is therefore MOD wide.