The Ammo bit is an exception, but there are “other” grey areas of military rules and regs that would be crystal clear if we were vrt
such as?
[quote=“incubus” post=17457]
It would make sense, but then bringing the two streams together it would make sense to have one. I’d prefer the free replacements system personally!
You are correct. I’m merely stating what would happen until such a system exists. However, this system MUST have an independent element and not simply end with Cmdt AC
Meh. Baubles for the egotists.[/quote]
Correct again.
How can you consider us unified? We are formed from 2 separate organisations, selected in 2 completely different ways and have 2 separate ways in which we’re accountable. We wear the same uniforms, but that’s it.
Luckily you being offended means nothing :p. No one is suggesting anyone has to have anything - it simply brings us in to line with some employers’ policies.
The fact we do a different thing to “regular” reservists is neither here nor there - if the policy doesn’t differentiate in roles then why is that our problem?
If your employer knows the basis for which you’re using the extra leave, how can that possibly be dishonest? Whilst it may not be the original purpose for which it was intended, you are still (generally) doing something to fulfil a defence aim - to engage with young people, receiving training etc. You could also argue that then your company is supporting their local community by allowing you the leave - a good thing for them too (but that’s a different point).
Telling your boss you’re training for Afghanistan when you’re attending summer camp is a different matter, but as long as people know then I cannot see why you’re on a high horse about it…
I consider us to be unified because in actuality we all work together at the various formations in this organisation and manage to do so seamlessly. It is utterly irrelevant to the huge majority of the work that we do that our officers are technically members of a different organisation than all of the other members because we all work for and with the Air Cadet Organisation.
If there is a crack in that seam it exists because we have officers and we have ORs. Who the officers get their chit form is supremely irrelevant.
Those people who seem to think there is some major rift between us all actually worry me.
If it doesn’t differentiate then the process is correct and by the book, but human nature will lead to facts being misrepresented for personal gain, which is not so good.
That aside, I believe it to be morally wrong; RISE and all that 
In the event that WO/SNCO (ATC) are drawn into the VR(T), what are the consequences for those we leave behind: the civilian staff and the uniformed cadets? We can probably assume that CIs will be ignored or marginalised as they don’t wear the uniform and apparently aren’t deserving of the special advantages that being in the RAF apparently brings.
For day-to-day business it makes no difference to cadets one way or the other so long as the staff are still doing their job: they’ll just notice a different gilt pin. What of the other uniformed adults though: the Staff Cadets. Don’t we want to impose military regulation directly upon them too?
However this is painted, everybody being in the ACO wins over most of the staff being in the VR(T) every single time. We are an organisation with rules, regulations, terms of service etc. and it is possible to hold people to account on that basis. Functionally there need be no difference to all-VR(T), all-ACO or the status quo.
Many of our VR(T) members take special pride in their relationship with the RAF but I’d be surprised if there weren’t also many who appreciate that it is merely a matter of function and that they would not be diminished if they were recommissioned into the Cadet Forces instead. Some seem to have an undue concern with their perceived status, but that is not a problem for the officers alone as the recent drive for shiny sticks and RAF coats of arms for RWOs/CACWO etc appears to suggest.
It would be interesting to see the full split of opinions vs backgrounds: how many officers prefer the VR(T) option compared to SNCOs; how many ex-regulars prefer closer integration compared to those without that history. There is bias from all sides I am sure and that can interfere with objective discussion of the advantages, even from me. I am, of course, slightly more interested in the pros and cons with regards to the volunteer than I am with the HQ view though the case if far from having been made.
I’ve rambled a bit - I may go back and edit for clarity, but probably not
such as?[/quote]
MAA rules on flying.
Angus and Rob make good replies, and to be honest make good sense.
My frustration is excepting the way we portray our parent service when a good proportion look like crap in uniform. I know someone’s size or fitness level has no real bearing on how well they function within the ACO, but the fact still remains they are in RAF uniform.
I would hope that VRT could have some leverage on this, but guess it would make much difference if not enforced.
Maybe the answer is to have a different attire completely as already suggested, but sadly I find it very hard to except fat, out of condition and disheveled people in a recognised uniform.
Maybe I need counselling on acceptance of others.
Fats are disgusting, no doubt about that, but what would you rather have, aesthetically pleasing but not enough volunteers or fats and enough volunteers?
Because like it or not imposing fitness standards will force the fats out and discourage them volunteering.
[quote=“SVS” post=17478]Fats are disgusting, no doubt about that, but what would you rather have, aesthetically pleasing but not enough volunteers or fats and enough volunteers?
Because like it or not imposing fitness standards will force the fats out and discourage them volunteering.[/quote]
I wouldn’t go as far as saying fats are disgusting. It’s their choice in life on how much they move and what they eat.
I have good friends that are classed as obese, doesn’t effect my relationship with them, other than I would love to help them change if they where willing.
I fully understand the ramifications if a cull was enforced, and clearly it’s not the answer. If the ACO where to be more proactive in their drive to recruit, then maybe we could be more selective in who dons a uniform.
Looks and ability are two different things but sadly outside perception carries weight (no pun intended)
If I see an overweight Scout volunteer with a scruffy beard or a sweaty disheveled St Johns member, I except it for what is, it’s their uniform and not aligned to anyone els. I just struggle when they are in current service inform.
[quote=“lead balloon” post=17480]I fully understand the ramifications if a cull was enforced, and clearly it’s not the answer.
If I see an overweight Scout volunteer I except it for what is, it’s their uniform and not aligned to anyone els.
I just struggle when they are in current service inform.[/quote]
The answer seems clear 
[quote=“lead balloon” post=17480]
I wouldn’t go as far as saying fats are disgusting. It’s their choice in life on how much they move and what they eat.
I have good friends that are classed as obese, doesn’t effect my relationship with them,[/quote]
Really? They smell and sweat a LOT. :?
In all seriousness, obese fats don’t present a good lifestyle example to the kids. But being pragmatic would I remove my nippers from a sqn if it had fat staff, probably not, I’d rather they had people who were prepared to put in plenty of effort for the kids experiences. As long as they don’t eat them 
.
such as?[/quote]
Arms and ammunition would be the primary advantage for SNCOs becoming VR(T) - at the moment ATC SNCOs are prohibited under the firearms act from transporting the L98A2 off service premises on the public road which puts a bit of a damper on range practices and must make things difficult for the ACOCTT (although I can’t understand the logic that only NCOs can apply to the team but never mind).
Going VR(T) also means that the SNCO can actually do Arms drill with live weapons without supervision from an officer (which is a farcical situation but again something that is the result of legislation not regulation)
On the whole, I think this would be beneficial as more and more SNCO seam to be treating the difference between the ATC & VR(T) with a trade union mentality stating that the would go to WWO or RWO when ever they are asked to do something they don’t like.
Now one big (hypothetical) question assuming SNCOs become VR(T) - when the VRT WO or FS throw their teddies out the pram when given a reasonable instruction - can they be put on a charge?
Why are people allowing the ammo movement issue to be a reason for SNCOs becoming VR(T)? The problem over ammo movement is not going to last forever as it is due to a knee jerk over reaction to the bar mine incident, as such it won’t last forever and before too long the restrictions on ammo movement will go away, let’s face it there have already been relaxations.
As BF said, the potential VR(T)ing of SNCOs is more about the CoC having greater control over them. But that could backfire as there are more of them and given one of the arguments for de-VR(T)ing Officers is the complaint process and the problems this apparently creates, there could be a massive own goal.
Before getting embroiled in making the change for SNCOs, a few things need to be looked at :
Why are there fewer Officers / people willing to go down the Commission route?
Why are ostensibly young Officers reluctant to take on commands?
What sort of selection/appointment process would VR(T) SNCOs have to go through?
The initial points need to addressed urgently as the SLT is sleepwalking into a problem, unless there are moves somewhere to change what we now regard as the norm, ie Officers running squadrons and doing the management side of the Corps.
Make the latter point too daunting and would we end up with the same problem as we have with Officers?
This is because the Regular armed forces would struggle dealing with a civilian, give them a rank and they understand and when they deal with outsiders, they wouldn’t have the same impact.
I was told an Officer was reinstated because the Wing role he had, the people he was dealing with couldn’t get their heads around it with him as a CI.
We have many Civil Servants with uniforms throughout the organisation, becuase it gives those they are dealing with a reference point … John Smith Reg Cmdt ABC Region, needs explaining but Gp Capt John Smith doesn’t.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=17485]
Now one big (hypothetical) question assuming SNCOs become VR(T) - when the VRT WO or FS throw their teddies out the pram when given a reasonable instruction - can they be put on a charge?[/quote]
Presumably not without jumping through all the same hoops as for charging anyone else…
As far as representing the RAF, I think any perceived ‘weight’ issue is far behind the very real issue of having too many idiots playing at their rank.
I think that a move to the VR(T) should carry with it a tightening up of the appointment and promotion process.
We are currently handing out FS and WO tapes to people who can barely even carry themselves as a Sgt.
These type of people are the the reason that “cadet instructors” are looked down upon by some Service personnel. Making these same incompetent muppets an official part of the RAFVR would probably create a greater divide.
I’m sure they are probably in the minority, but as we all know, negative publicity carries further than positive.
I get annoyed at seeing too many amateurs playing dress-up and I’m in the ATC… It’s no wonder that those in the RAF who’ve worked hard to achieve that rank find it offensive.
Regardless to any change from ATC to VR(T), the key to building a better relationship with the RAF is for us to stop handing out promotion to FS/WO/Sqn Ldr to people who don’t deserve it.
Simply serving a few years and ticking a few meaningless boxes on a form is no basis for justifiable promotion.
I’m not really sure why you have these plastic snecs at all. Bin them all off and commission everyone into the VRT.
I wonder if all those posting on here decrying and denegrating their fellow CFAV, would meet all of the criteria they propose and are perfect in every way concievable?
Frankly why should we be overly concerned what those in the RAF think of us as individuals or collectively, they’re more than welcome to come along and show us how to do it. As a Sqn Cdr there is very little that I can do if staff decide not to come along (well not unless they aren’t around for a couple months in the case of uniformed staff) on parade evenings or events/activities. As a volunteer youth organisation we need people who are willing to come along and put in time and effort, in their spare time to work with teenagers. A question to ask is do they really need a uniform to do this … no. However given the organisation we are in we need people WILLING to take on uniformed roles. Make the uniform process too exacting and you could end up with a greater non uniformed (unaccountable) staffing than we have currently.
It would be interesting to know what sort of selection process for SNCOs is envisaged? The OASC process is not IMO robust, given that it is the opinions of the DS that make one element and (as I heard) all those who go forward the final decision rests with HQAC grandees and the appointments are made on a combination of OASC’s notes and arbitrary grounds such as the applicant having skills, abilities etc that the Corps may require.
I struggle with the logic there, the armed forces like most branches of government are well versed in dealing with, working with & working for Civil Servants.
I understand that it might be simpler to just make them Sqn Ldr’s but I don’t see that it makes it right.
Have you met the CCF? I rest my case.