Review that question after 07/05/15.
They say that, but is it a reason or a justification?
The three main cadet forces are already noticeably different. SCC Officers have totally different commissions that either ATC or ACF; All SCC staff can use the post-nominals RNR or RMR - ATC WO/SNCOS can’t use RAFR; new ACF Instructors go through a very different training scheme than ours…
There are loads of differences. For them to say “Oh, you can’t do that because…ummm… it’s all DYER” sounds like a cop out to me.
Review that question after 07/05/15.[/quote]
Do you want to be any less cryptic?
DYER has worked out be a complete if not DIRE waste of time. I contributed thinking what we suggest would be used and I thought we’d move things forward. Now though the closest analogy I can see is the eu - trying to get disparate groups which work differently all to agree. As can be seen by the apparent requirement for all 3 CF to agree wrt SNCO status, this ain’t gonna happen, because it doesn’t suit some. So what I can see happening is someone just saying this is how it will be and having people p!$$ed off because it’s not what they want/see as best for them.
The biggest problem in the ATC is that some of the proposals revolved around restructuring and removing Regions, effectively requiring the RCs to be as turkeys voting for Christmas.
Review that question after 07/05/15.[/quote]
Do you want to be any less cryptic?[/quote]
The start of the revolution. The day when, sadly, Mr Farage becomes everybodies mate in the latest depressing turn in British Politics.
What has Herr von Farage got to do with it ?
Dyer seems to have taken ages. Has anything actually happened?
From what I heard from a very senior member of staff at HQAC, only about 4 proposals out of 41 in DYER are going to be taken forward and some of what has been announced, like ending CCF pay has been revoked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Our recent briefing informed us that there are changes that the DYER want to make to the CF’s but are being held up due to potential legal issues occurring if such changes are made. We weren’t told what those ‘changes’ actually were.
It could drag on for a long time yet.
In other words all the time money spent on the report has been a waste of time and it’s a case of SNAFU. The RAF will probably wait for the report publication and then do what it wants. The 3 cfs are so disparate that there really is no way to have them running in parallel imo
Whilst on this subject, does anyone know when the tcos review will be released?
What’s the latest on this? I’ve, like many others, have heard this was coming into effect by the new year, others said before RIAT this year… The Corps seem to be SILENT yet again on this, and it would be good to know what the hell is being done, if anything.
Speculation is the lifestream of the corps, with the rumour mill pumping it around more and more. but it will be good to have closure…
[cynic on]It will never happen, no really it won’t, Dyer said so. The Army and the Duke of Westminster will get there way. As always in this purple era.[/cynic off]
It should, but I will eat my cap; field service if it does.
i have heard all kinds of deadlines, Christmas 2014/some time by 2015/everyone in agreement by 2016!
as i understand it the ACF (or rather the Army) are digging their heels in as the change in status for ATC to VRT and the ACF equivalent is something the Army aren’t happy about due to changes in what they are entitled too…
Bump
Like I said before it will never happen…
[quote=“the silverback” post=24285]Bump
Like I said before it will never happen…
[/quote]
It’s just like the Off Cdt VR(T) Mk.II 
I think the real elephant in the room is this:
[quote]Armed Forces Act 2006 s354 wrote:
Extension of powers of command dependent on rank or rate
An officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer of a regular or reserve force who is subject to service law (“A”) has, over members of any other such force who are of inferior rank or rate to A, such powers of command as are dependent on rank or rate.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/354[/quote]
In essence, what this section of AFA06 makes clear is that RAFVR(T) Officers have - and by extension - RAFVR(T) WOs & SNCOs would have, powers of command over those junior to them; whether fellow reservists or regulars.
This is because - as we know (confirmed in CROs and ACP20 PI201) - that RAFVR(T) Officers are subject to Service Law whilst on duty, as per s367
[quote]Armed Forces Act 2006 s367 wrote:
Persons subject to service law: regular and reserve forces
(1) Every member of the regular forces is subject to service law at all times.
(2) Every member of the reserve forces is subject to service law while—
(a) in permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c. 9) or the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14) or under any other call-out obligation of an officer;
(b) in home defence service on call-out under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980;
© in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
(d) undertaking any training or duty (whether or not in pursuance of an obligation); or
(e) serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/367[/quote]
s367(2)d applies - as we (Officers, that is) undertake training and duties, not in pursuance of an obligation; since we are exempted from our annual training obligation under s22 of RFA96 by s23 of said Act, through regulations made under s4 (tell me if further explanation is needed!) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/14/contents
We are subject to Service Law on these occasions (i.e. whenever we are “on duty”), as per s27 of RFA96
[quote]Reserve Forces Act 1996 s27 wrote:
Voluntary training and other duties.
(1) Nothing in this Part prevents a member of a reserve force—
(a) undertaking any voluntary training in the United Kingdom or elsewhere that is made available to him as a member of that force;
(b) undertaking any voluntary training or performing other voluntary duties in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, being training or duties undertaken or performed at his own request or following a request made to him by or on behalf of his commanding officer.
(2) Orders or regulations under section 4 may make provision as to the provision and use of training facilities for members of reserve forces and otherwise in connection with the undertaking of training or other duties as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A member of a reserve force shall be subject to service law while performing voluntary duties or training as mentioned in subsection (1)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/14/section/27[/quote]
s27(3) applies…
So - to close the loop - with it confirmed by s27 RFA96 and s367(2)d AFA06 that RAFVR(T) Officers are subject to Service Law whilst on duty (as RAFVR(T) WOs & SNCOs would also be), it kicks over the can of worms that s354 AFA06 opens …i.e. that RAFVR(T) WOs and SNCOs (and Army Reserve General List B WOs & SNCOs for the CCF(Army) and ACF equivalent) would have legal powers of command over junior personnel, whether reserve or regular.
It is this (IMHO) that the Army are railing against.
Indeed they were - arguably - against the status quo in terms of the legal authority of Officers, if one reads the 2011 DYER Interim Report “leaked” via an FOI request from a CFAV (not the 2012 Final Report, which used much more diplomatic language!). One of the original proposals of the DYER Interim Report was the creation of a “cadet commission” to replace the Queens Commission held by RAFVR(T) and TA/Army Reserve General List B Officers; so that they would have no legal authority over junior personnel. The logical extension of this was that said Officers would no longer serve in either the RAFVR(T) or TA/AR, so that they were concurrently no longer subject to Service Law …so the authority of a “cadet commission” would apply only to the personnel of the Cadet Forces.
I would imagine that the Army perspective is that (a) there are many more WO/SNCO AIs in the ACF than there are WOs/SNCOs(ATC), thus potentially giving them a greater problem; and (b) that said personnel are neither trained nor sufficiently experienced (or perhaps, more controversially, sufficiently capable) to exercise “powers of command” over other reservists or regulars.
They may have a point…
Cheers
BTI
But when would SNCO/WO RAFVR(T) need to exercise powers of command? Stations etc will have their own Discips. etc - so with regards to dicipline matters they would refer to them for the correct reporting procedure.
Not sure about the pongos, but I’d imagine it would be very similar?
The only time I can see the need to exercise powers of command would be if it was a Service Instructor on your squadron (as long as they are a junior rank that is) 
“…of any other such force…”
Dead easy. VR(T) would have command over others within itself; and possibly other cadet forces if they too became ‘reserve’.
All that would be needed is to make clear that RAFVR(T) are not “such a force” as the RAF/RAuxAF/&c.