Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
141

[quote=“lead balloon” post=17437]ACO and staff need to make their minds up to what we really are. Are we glorified youth club, if so then de-uniform staff and remove RAF involvement and become more like Air Scouts.

Or, move all to VR(T) look and act the part and become a true Blue Footprint. That way we may gain greater respect from some of our peers, rather than thinking we are a joke whilst running around the Crowns uniform.[/quote]

I prefer the middle ground: Remain a MOD-sponsored youth organisation but remain an organisation in our own right, not integrated into the Royal Air Force and not bound by their often inappropriate and unsuitable tranche of regulations. They support us and we support them, but we are different things and treated as such.

We remain part of the blue footprint but we also retain a true representation of what we are, what we do and what we need to be. Our staff are our staff, working with us and for us. RAF personnel can be detached to work with us for a period if that is seen as necessary, much as they may work with another service or a foreign power for a period of time.

We retain the right to wear the same uniform as the RAF but we are badged/marked clearly to indicate our independent nature. Alternatively, lets get our own similar but distinct uniform instead and avoid that question altogether: it makes no difference to me or to what I do or how I do it.

142

What are the tangible real benefits to the individual? Pride is a personal thing that manifests itself outwardly and recognition for what and from whom? The only people I really want recognition for our efforts from are cadets and parents, as frankly I don’t give a monkey’s what our regular cousins think of us, they aren’t doing the same as us nor we them. We are chalk and cheese in the same wrapping.

I feel that before our SLT get too bothered about the CFAV, they need to get their own house in order.
We have parts of the SLT that are RAF and a larger part that is Civil Service (including HQAC staff, RCs, ARCs and Wing ExOs) and many of the latter IMO like to keep on playing at being in the RAF (despite some being well passed retirement) and only having to pay lipservice to the RAF parts, even though a number have served in the RAF. From some of the comments I’ve heard from people I know who have worked with HQAC and other senior management over the years, is they have a tendency to sit on and avoid doing things, in the knowledge the catalyst will be gone in a couple of years and the new catalyst will know no different. As a result the Corps stagnates and then tries to move in large leaps.
This would explain why we get changes, policies and procedures that come out all at once and end up with the utter confusion among the CFAV with people across the Corps doing different things, especially where Regions and or Wings introduce their own caveats.

143

[quote=“incubus” post=17442][quote=“lead balloon” post=17437]ACO and staff need to make their minds up to what we really are. Are we glorified youth club, if so then de-uniform staff and remove RAF involvement and become more like Air Scouts.

Or, move all to VR(T) look and act the part and become a true Blue Footprint. That way we may gain greater respect from some of our peers, rather than thinking we are a joke whilst running around the Crowns uniform.[/quote]

I prefer the middle ground: Remain a MOD-sponsored youth organisation but remain an organisation in our own right, not integrated into the Royal Air Force and not bound by their often inappropriate and unsuitable tranche of regulations. They support us and we support them, but we are different things and treated as such.

We remain part of the blue footprint but we also retain a true representation of what we are, what we do and what we need to be. Our staff are our staff, working with us and for us. RAF personnel can be detached to work with us for a period if that is seen as necessary, much as they may work with another service or a foreign power for a period of time.

We retain the right to wear the same uniform as the RAF but we are badged/marked clearly to indicate our independent nature. Alternatively, lets get our own similar but distinct uniform instead and avoid that question altogether: it makes no difference to me or to what I do or how I do it.[/quote]

You are Alex Salmond and I claim my £5

:stuck_out_tongue:

144

In short yes I would and I would extend that to some of our CCF colleagues - VR(T) is VR(T) and all that.

The weight arguement has been done before so I won’t go into it again. Also others have represented my views subsequently on the issue.

145

[quote=“noah claypole” post=17444][quote=“incubus” post=17442][quote=“lead balloon” post=17437]ACO and staff need to make their minds up to what we really are. Are we glorified youth club, if so then de-uniform staff and remove RAF involvement and become more like Air Scouts.

Or, move all to VR(T) look and act the part and become a true Blue Footprint. That way we may gain greater respect from some of our peers, rather than thinking we are a joke whilst running around the Crowns uniform.[/quote]

I prefer the middle ground: Remain a MOD-sponsored youth organisation but remain an organisation in our own right, not integrated into the Royal Air Force and not bound by their often inappropriate and unsuitable tranche of regulations. They support us and we support them, but we are different things and treated as such.

We remain part of the blue footprint but we also retain a true representation of what we are, what we do and what we need to be. Our staff are our staff, working with us and for us. RAF personnel can be detached to work with us for a period if that is seen as necessary, much as they may work with another service or a foreign power for a period of time.

We retain the right to wear the same uniform as the RAF but we are badged/marked clearly to indicate our independent nature. Alternatively, lets get our own similar but distinct uniform instead and avoid that question altogether: it makes no difference to me or to what I do or how I do it.[/quote]

You are Alex Salmond and I claim my £5

:P[/quote]

Either that or he’s an aspiring air scout…

146

You take that back! The man is a gobshite.
And it’ll be €5 :wink:

Absolutely. I am immensely proud of the ATC and I’m proud to be a part of the ATC. I don’t need a false affiliation to the RAF (which I chose not to join) to be able to appreciate what we have or what we do.

I have never experienced a negative attitude levelled towards me and towards my role by RAF personnel. No more that you could expect from someone being disturbed from their day job and asked for stuff. If you approach people without bearing an air of entitlement and represent yourself as the youth leader you are I find that the regulars treat you fairly.

Surely, dragging everybody into the RAF and expecting this to somehow make us all equals (we’d still be the lowest priority and we’d still not be going around ordering the regulars about) will cause even more friction with the regulars and lead to more CFAV acting like throbbers, sullying our reputation.

I cannot help but feel that this is all smoke and mirrors and the real justification is to provide a larger stick to beat us all with, but that is just sloppy thinking by those entrenched in the RAF mindset. We can all be held to account as it is and we have all got rules to follow - perhaps the ACO just needs a better staff contract to make the situation absolutely clear (and perhaps there needs to be a bit of cooperation with MOD so that MOD regulations take account of CF specifically)

Besides, it was the VR(T) entitlement to appeal to the monarch which was causing significant caseload burden at the Ivory Towers and that was identified as a problem. This would be avoided if we follow the DYER recommendations of a CF commission across all CFs which intern renders the question of re-enlisting SNCO/WO(ATC) into the RAFVR(T) (assuming that ever becomes possible - if it does, we can have proper Officer Cadets too) as moot.

147

Does anyone know, and I mean really know how many “cases” ever go anywhere near as high as that? Or does everyone assume that every VR(T) subject to a slight telling off goes crying to 'Liz?

I strongly suspect that the amount of time taken up with cases is more likely to be the poor and ineffecient way they have been dealt with in the past (in more than one occassion going through the employment tribunal process) rather than Officers going through every level of redress…

148

I know that there are enough people escalating relatively minor complaints to quite a high level (not sure how many reach the monarch) that it has been identified as a drain on already strained resources.

149

Know, or heard on the rumour mill…

150

"Besides, it was the VR(T) entitlement to appeal to the monarch which was causing significant caseload burden at the Ivory Towers and that was identified as a problem. This would be avoided if we follow the DYER recommendations of a CF commission across all CFs which intern renders the question of re-enlisting SNCO/WO(ATC) into the RAFVR(T) (assuming that ever becomes possible - if it does, we can have proper Officer Cadets too) as moot. "

I heard at ATF from Gp Capt Lawlor that it was in deed an issue that was being looked into and the Outcome would probably end up with this chain ending at the Cmdt ACO’s Door for VRT staff…following posiible much neede a review and rewrite of the VRT Commissioning Policy.

151

How about we put the (ATC) vs. VR(T) argument into a practical (and current) scenario.

Moving Ammunition for example.

At present - I believe that some RAF stations are still refusing to let SNCOs(ATC) be part of the uniformed escort. Maybe if they had RAF VR(T) status they may be recognised as “service personnel” and would be allowed?

What other applications would it be of interest for SNCOs to be VR(T) rather than (ATC)?

152

You take that back! The man is a gobshite.
And it’ll be €5 :wink:
[/quote]

Er… I don’t think it will be Euro’s as they don’t seem to want you either Chap…

We’ll have to settle in Groats, Deep Fried Mars Bars or whatever passes itself off as Scottish currency post ‘happy day’.

:wink:

153

Name dropping will get you everywhere… :wink:

But, seriously, there is a fundamental flaw with this approach.

154

[quote=“Jonay1990” post=17453]How about we put the (ATC) vs. VR(T) argument into a practical (and current) scenario.

Moving Ammunition for example.

At present - I believe that some RAF stations are still refusing to let SNCOs(ATC) be part of the uniformed escort. Maybe if they had RAF VR(T) status they may be recognised as “service personnel” and would be allowed?

What other applications would it be of interest for SNCOs to be VR(T) rather than (ATC)?[/quote]

You would have SNCOs getting uniform upkeep allowance.
SNCOs able to go down a service complaint route
You might get a nice shiny appointment certificate signed by someone higher than Cmdt AC?
Unifies the uniformed staff?
Easier for ammo?
As has been mentioned, it might make it easier for some to justify extra leave to their employers as SNCOs would then be technically reservists.

155

Have heard directly from very senior people in HQAC on a couple of recent occasions.

[quote=“Jonay1990” post=17453]How about we put the (ATC) vs. VR(T) argument into a practical (and current) scenario.
Moving Ammunition for example.

At present - I believe that some RAF stations are still refusing to let SNCOs(ATC) be part of the uniformed escort.[/quote]

The authority is already in place for ATC SNCO/WO to act as escort - it is the RAF’s badmin which preventing the message being heard loud and clear by some units and followed.

If anything, the ammunition issue stands testament to the ease with which ATC personnel need not be at a disadvantage compared to VR(T) in areas which are notably sensitive.

[quote=“pEp” post=17456]You would have SNCOs getting uniform upkeep allowance.[/quote]NAh - surely we’d get free replacements as we do at the moment - I thought UUA was for hofficers only. :slight_smile:

[quote=“pEp” post=17456]SNCOs able to go down a service complaint route[/quote]Unnecessary - the ACO needs its own, resilient complaints procedure suitable for all tiers of personnel

Meh. Baubles for the egotists.

[quote=“pEp” post=17456]Unifies the uniformed staff?[/quote]We are already pretty unified

[quote=“pEp” post=17456]As has been mentioned, it might make it easier for some to justify extra leave to their employers as SNCOs would then be technically reservists.[/quote]This actually offends me and I wouldn’t claim additional holiday even if it were offered: We aren’t actually reservists in the true general understanding of the term and to claim holidays on that basis strikes me as dishonest and not in the spirit of the rules (even where the employer is fully aware of hte precise nature of our work)

156

I am extremely new to the Corps and the Forum, however as a current CI who is wrestling with the question of which route to take once I have completed my required year as a CI (SNCO or RAFVR(T)), this Topic has certainly given me some food for thought.

I think that the fundamental issue is the difference of opinion about the required level of proximity to the parent service. There seems to be (not only in this topic but across the Forum), a clear dividing line between those who see their involvement purely through the lens of youth work with a service flavour, and those who welcome and acknowledge the wider role that the ACO plays in supporting and promoting the RAF. From this distinction (IMO), stems the difference between those who are keen on greater integration and recognition from the parent service, and those who see ‘ever closer union’ as anathema to the essence of the Corps.

This then goes to the question of what importance is placed on acceptance by the RAF regulars, appearance of a person in uniform, training requirements, fitness, and all the other practical issues that result from a decision one way or the other on the issue of RAFVR.

Regardless of personal opinion on the above issue it has to be acknowledged that while the RAF/MOD fund and support the ACO the relationship between the people on the ground is of paramount importance as this is the touch point that most affects the experience of the Cadets.

For this reason I think that RAFVR for all adult uniform staff is a good idea. It doesn’t have to be a full blown, do the same as the Regular and active reserve forces selection and training. It should however show recognition of those standards and look to strive for them. This would help the uniform to sit much easier on our shoulders, and engender a mutual respect between CFAV and Forces.

A good example of this on a smaller scale is my previous service as an Army Musician, and in particular my stint with the Band of the Parachute Regiment. Army Musicians also fall generally into two camps of those who see themselves as musicians-first soldiers second, and vice versa. This is particularly problematic when it comes to the Paras as the Band members wear the Maroon Beret without having to have completed P Company. This leads to the same sort of comments about entitlement and earning the right that arise in relation to CFAVs wearing the uniform of the parent service.

In contrast the Band of the Blues & Royals members are required to go the through the same Mounted Duties course as the lads in the Regiment and there is a mutual respect between the two for completing a difficult and at times unpleasant course.

I think that a meeting in the middle of these two approaches (Paras and Blues & Royals) in the training and selection of CFAV into the RAFVR would help to build the strong relationships which benefit the ACO and the RAF.

157

What, jumping out of a 'plane whilst riding a horse?

Blimey!

*Sorry couldn’t resist :mrgreen:

158

What, jumping out of a 'plane whilst riding a horse?

Blimey!

*Sorry couldn’t resist :mrgreen:[/quote]

:lol: That sounds as ridiculous as the idea of riding a horse and playing an instrument…oh wait :blink:

159

ExArmyMusic brings some good points.

I don’t believe there are any middle grounds and the fact that we put the RAF uniform on and are in the public eye dictate how we should act and look.

I understand it’s about the cadets and what we do with them, but I wish there was more control in who and how someone gets into uniform.

Maybe being ex-service makes this more difficult for me to except. But like the rest of you, we all have opinions.

160

[quote=“lead balloon” post=17464]…I understand it’s about the cadets and what we do with them, but I wish there was more control in who and how someone gets into uniform.

Maybe being ex-service makes this more difficult for me to except. But like the rest of you, we all have opinions.[/quote]

see, i don’t get why some think the regular services are the standard to aim for, and that anything different is somehow ‘less’.

the Regular RAF, that some seem to idolise as the epitomy of service ‘correctness’, has had a generation of senior officers (air rank and above) who have consistantly lied, ignored both the rules and traditions of their service, betrayed junior officers, and behaved in a disgusting, utterly indefensible way over the loss of the Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre - they overturned a BOI report and blamed the crew when not only was their no evidence to support such a veiw, but when there was significant evidence that blamed the aircraft.

all of the ‘fine, upstanding’ officers involved spent a year at Sleaford Tech, not a week, and yet they still behaved appallingly.

a Royal Marine murdered a wounded prisoner in Afghanistan.

a whole swathe of Soldiers were somewhere between culpable and negligent over the handling of civilian prisoners in Iraq - one died, many were seriously beaten and maltreated.

i am a former regular Army Officer, the forces have their fair share of venal, ego-driven, incompetant cretins - all of whom have recieved the training many seem to think will drive venal, ego-driven, incompetant cretins out of the ACO. it won’t. and given the spectacular success we’ve had fighting two wars against people in flip-flops, i’m not convinced it will make you any better at your jobs…