Thankyou for your explanation, comments aimed at group for some healthy debate, we got our approved via CofA only the 2nd squadron to do it so i can assure you that ours is 100% legit, not everyone uses cadet central as their centre of lets get it right universe. When we applied to CofA info on ATC (now RAFAC) was sparse hence my pov is squadrons created their own badge/crest etc with no intentions of crossing any lines, it is fine sitting on a high perch preaching but unless the regs are promulgated widely so everyone can understand without being talked down to. If upper echelons want people to lisyen i suggest they start hearing because widely accusing OCs of not toeing the line is not great engagement or empowerment both of which may produce the results our beloved echelons of power are so desperate to achieve. ps I dont know where you reside but I am an OC hence stereo typing usxas not toeing the line when some if us are doing our best of what we got bugs me.
for what it is worth I am only accusing the OCs of not toeing the line when they havenât - not a general comment about all OCs - clearly those who have done it by the book get a 
but those who for whatever reason have gone their own way are clearly not âtoeing the lineâ and it is those who I am identifying
Perfect explanation thank you, and seems a reasonable approach, so simply put if it dosent meet this it wont go on the webpage which is where i think this discussion first started. If i were rafac hq i would put out a missive of 'If you want your badge include on the website please ensure it meets these requirements and forward for uploading. Clearly the organisation is not ready for auto capture so some people in the mco departnent are going to have to do some manual work.
Yeah, I see that too. In some cases the motto, but more regularly the charges.
Thatâs a slightly tricky one, because no one person at âThe RAF Squadronâ really has the authority to give that consent. It some cases Iâve even heard âThe Squadron association said we can use itâ. A Squadron association probably hasnât even less authority over it than the current squadron execs.
The badge doesnât belong to those people; Itâs bigger than they are. Really, itâs only the College of Arms who could approve it; and they likely wouldnât because itâs a badge design already registered. An element of the RAF Sqn badge might be permitted to show the link, but just borrowing the whole design⌠Iâm not convinced.
Iâd be interested to hear whether a unit has tried formally via the College to reuse an existing design like that, and what was said. How much weight the College gave to the wishes / opinions of the RAF Sqn.
I mean, RAF Squadron Commanders do have quite a bit of authority no?
Iâve not asked specifically but I know that 10F uses 10 Sqnâs and theirs has been approved by CoAâŚ
Yes, but potentially not over things which are bigger than they are. Theyâre only an incumbent in that post. âThe Squadronâ and its badge were there long before they took post and will be there long after they move on in a few yearsâ time. One could think of them as a guardian or trustee, rather than an owner.
Now that is interesting. Thanks for that.
EDIT â Ah, actually⌠This is potentially a great example.
10 Sqn RAF:
An old 10F Sqn ATC badge I found online (clearly a direct ripoff of the charges from 10 RAF):
And hereâs what the CoA has approved for 10F:
Theyâve clearly been permitted to retain a link through some âinspired byâ charges, but theyâve not been permitted to reuse the RAF Sqnâs badge. Theyâve had to be different.
Actually you can do it via HQ - the college of arms have delegated squadron badges.
Thatâll be interesting!
Many of our now Badge regulators are rank-and-power hungry managerial failures who donât even understand what a brewery does, let alone have the faintest ability to organise anything in one! As we often find out to out to expense, many have no military experience and their application of unit and Squadron history is lacking.
Having our illustrious WExOs approve Badges will just as likely result in some abominations as the criteria could well simply be âoh, that looks niceâ!
Hasnât it been like that for years, I refreshed one about 12 years ago, we didnât spend the money but it was approved by HQAC.
I believe so. I contacted the College recently to enquire about a new badge and was told HQ can do it, and given an email address. I think there is a small cost if you want an official drawing of it, but no where near the ÂŁ350
is this actually required in a volunteer youth organisation? Yes I know we are RAF sponsored but what is there any real need to have prior military experience in any role from CI right up to CAC?
Other youth organisations cope without military experienced staff I am sureâŚ
Last time I looked, we were a military themed youth organisation!
And yes, it does help, particularly in the case we are discussing. In the wider context of the RAFAC it also hugely desirous as we have to follow many Parent Service requirements and our CFAVs love it that theyâre part of the Greater RAF.
Having a crucial middle managerial tier which has no clue about the actual or idiosyncratic requirements of the Service it sits within leads to the guesswork, inefficiency and ineffectiveness that we have come to expect.
This is often not a good thing.
I think that ship sailed with the Commission change, most donât seem to give a stuff about âbeing the light blue footprintâ anymore. Itâs only the handful of former service personnel and RHQ/HQAC that seek to be excited about that anymore.
Wholeheartedly agree with this. Couldnât give a toss now.
Having served, I can tell you for fact that this is no less evident in the regular forces than it is the pretend forcesâŚ
But the knock-on effects of having one incompetent person in a bigger team are less far-reaching than having an incompetent person in a digital post, which is what our WExOs are.
I agree, itâs not about being the footprint any more; however, for quite a lot of our uniformed CFAVs itâs about âbeing part ofâ the RAF, wearing the uniform and wearing the rank. Thread drift warning - If the MoD were to suddenly announce that all cdt forces were losing their sponsorship but people could carry on doing what they do now, but as civilians (clearly excusing our CI colleagues here) with absolutely no attachment, link, affiliation or otherwise to the RAF, how many would actually stay? Iâd wager not many.
So if you both donât give a stuff/toss, do you both still wear the uniform and if so, why?
I havenât worn uniform since pre-Covid because of my role and because Iâm at a place in my life where I volunteer on my own terms.
If I did go back to a unit Iâd wear it because thatâs what the Cadets would expect, or I would become a CI.
What I certainly wouldnât do, which I used to is any of the ceremonial âlight blue footprintâ crap, what those above really think about us and our place in the RAF family was made very clear in person by the FTRS officers I spoke to during the Commission change.
If the parade is important enough that the RAF feel it needs a light blue footprint I suggest they send some people. (The only exception would be Remembrance Day, but I expect to be working that event every year anyway).
Rarely because of my specialism. I do when necessary because thatâs what the organisation expects, and to play the game. Not out of some duty to the RAF. Similarly to @daws1159, any âLight Blue Footprintâ events are rapidly chinned off.