Let’s be really clear here. The RAFAC was formed less than 10 years ago, arguably, in 2017. The 85 years anniversary is of the formation of the ATC. This constant diluting of the ATCs background it’s becoming bad. the RAFAC is not the ATC.
If we’re going to go for an ‘Air Cadet’ anniversary, should we start using the ADCC formation year instead?
The complete lack of mention of the ATC in these sort of posts is really winding me up.
I’m flattered to be tagged alongside the top dog, though perhaps not justifiably!
I’m speaking personally here…
I share your generalised frustration.
Our local (and very good) RFCA magazine puts the badges of the SCC, ACF, and CCF next to a roundel for “the RAFAC” — not even the full logo. I’ve mentioned it, but it hasn’t changed.
There is an imbalance I find very frustrating.
If we are to be publicly known as the “RAFAC” instead of the “Air Cadets”, then that shouldn’t suddenly prevent us frequently reminding the public that there are actually two incredibly prestigious organisations that come under that umbrella.
Or at least not when we’re celebrating the formation of one of them.
To my mind, might we perhaps be better off simply applying to change the name of the ATC to something like “Royal Air Force Cadets” and then we can embrace it as our actual name, without necessarily losing that heritage?
People on the street frequently call us the “RAF Cadets” anyway.
Change isn’t bad, I just feel like we haven’t actually done a proper change.
Edit: If I’ve got anything wrong, I’m happy to publicly take it back.
To be clear again from my POV, I love that we’re now the RAFAC. The ATC and the CCF under one name, as was the ACO is great! More working together etc, blah blah. It’s good.
But when it comes to branding and anniversary celebrations, we need to be really clear what we are celebrating. This year is the 85th anniversary of the formation of the ATC. And that’s something that should be celebrated! But it’s not the RAFAC.
And @OC.1324 I tagged you as I know you care about such distinctions, and are also the sort of person who’ll raise it as needed. I’ve resigned, so it’s very much not for me to raise any more.
I think it’s a problem because we’re two distinct organisations.
As much as it’s a good thing to work very closely with our light blue colleagues and standardise more, it’s no different in my mind to our green and dark blue colleagues, but we wouldn’t rename our organisation to include those who are still actually in another organisation.
Are the Scouts and the Air Scouts actually different organisations?
If so, that’d be my case in point.
I’m sure they probably work together a lot, but the fact that one is the Air Scouts is a distinction that matters. If they came together as just “Scouts”, then that’s not actually helpful if they’ve not properly merged.
No, they are all part of The Scout Association (assuming they are TSA scout groups - there are non TSA groups and even associations but I’m unaware of any non TSA air units)
TSA has recognition agreements with the RN and RAF for Sea and Air Scout groups.
ETA if you want to see what organisational chaos really looks like go on to one of the many scouting forums online where TSA and non TSA groups fight to the death over the correct type of woggle.
Also noticed she styled herself as ‘Honorary Air Commandant’ in the letter which sounds slightly wrong. Other previous articles state her to be either simply Patron, or ‘Honorary Air Commodore-in-Chief’, which sounds slightly better.
Yes. Next year there should be a big thing about RAFAC 10 years since the rebrand of the ACO. Perfect! That would be #RAFAC10. (Or what ever year it was, I can’t actually recall the rebrand year from ACO to RAFAC)
