Can’t find the last thread on this topic…
I’m just going to leave these here…
Interesting… However still silence from above on what’s going on
IIRC there was some grumblings from the ACF about this, which put it on hold.
I still can’t see what the advantage for SNCOs is to become VR(T). As far as I can see the advantages lay with management as they have more of a hold over them.
It’s been put back due to changes which negate the survey
Didn’t the ACF whinge about it and that set everything back for the ACO? From what I read, the ACF didn’t want their SNCO’s anywhere near becoming VR(T) equivalent (wouldn’t that be a class of the Army Reserve or something?).
^^^ That is how i understand it.
ACF or rather the Army are kicking up a fuss.
in reaction to GHE2 comments - no, you’re quite right. there is no Cadet benefit for it, simply a change of status permitting HQAC more say over how SNCOs are handled (ie as MOD rather than Civilian)
I thought that’s what I said … management have more of a hold over them. There is no benefit to the cadet and nor IMO to the adult NCOs.
But it does seem somewhat immaterial currently.
My understanding of the Army’s “issues” is:
(a) They don’t want CF personnel to have authority over any regular or reserve personnel
(b) ACF AIs (our SNCOs/WOs) are currently “owned” by the RFCAs; were they to go Army Reserve alongside the Offrs the RFCAs would lose that element of their empire. The ACFA and CRFCAs has a lot of influence with MoD.
© They are fixated on the Service Complaints issue.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - if the SC issue is THE problem; it can be resolved by order of the SoS exempting CF personnel from the SC process. There is scope and authority for this in AFA06.
However, since - on the face of it - no one seems to have looked at this option; I suspect that (a) trumps ©, and the real agenda is the removal of the Queens Commission.
This is what DYER implied, and is aligned with the “arms length”, Grant In Aid, SCC-style approach DYER recommended for the future.
I fear we may be losing this battle.
Cheers
BTI
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
do CFAVs a really have authority over regulars?
I can see on paper that a Fg Off VRT has authority over a SAC/Cpl RAF they may meet on a section visit, but in what world, in which situation does a CFAV have a position of authority to flex?
the only situation i can imagine it would come into the real world would be a on case of safety and or welfare in that a CFAV would step in and put the situation right, and that should be the stance of every CFAV, regardless of rank or event uniform!
In the world inside the heads of some of our CFAVs, that’s where. I’m sure many of us can cite examples where an individual with an inflated sense of relevance has overstepped the bounds and acted in a way that would not be considered reasonable or acceptable by most people in the regulars or cadet forces.
Generally speaking these problems should be able to be countered directly, though some rise to a level where it is difficult or awkward to do so. I suppose drawing a big black line between our staff makes the position totally unambiguous.
That won’t go down well with some.
What has to be irritating is that the FOI request is dated May, the FOI release June, but the decision you suspect had already been made before the request date. Given how quick HQAC are to send out pointless BS, ‘bad’ news and no you can’t messages, you would have thought this would have been out there, even if the decision was made in the last few days.
There’s no pill to sweeten, so why delay?
Bit of a slap in the face if u ask me. I suspect the delay is due to the preparation of spin. Bury the bad news with an announcement of good stuff at some point to be determined. It seems the RAF rather than bringing us closer want to push us away
There’s a huge reason behind all this, and if you aren’t aware why it means you haven’t been briefed by your wing commander. Essentially there is no point in bringing any more people into the VRT.
Whys that
So, is this the “big news” that was dangled on a carrot a few weeks ago?
(I was briefed on this yesterday, by the way)
We know nothing as of yet no briefing
My information suggests that the much-mooted “Cadet Forces Commission” will simply be a harmonisation of Officers TACOS across the ATC, ACF, and CCF.
“The Commission” will still be the Queens Commission, and Offrs for service with the ATC and CCF(RAF) will still be commissioned into the RAFVR(T) - however - TACOS will change, e.g. a change in the nature of “pay”, restriction on the right to make a Service Complaint, etc.
From an ATC perspective, all perfectly acceptable within the wording of the Royal Warrant.
…unless anyone has been briefed differently?
Cheers
BTI
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The RAF want to bring us closer, only so they can interfere and keep jobs for the boys (and girls) as the RAF shrinks faster than a wool jumper in a hot wash.
I have checked with HQAC apparently it was a Tri Service decision. Not a decision the the ACO wanted but one they had to accept. There are still good things ahead, decisions that will prove popular.bti is right officers will still have the qc and wo’s will have the Royal warrant but not before 2020. Sometimes you lose the battle but win the war