I don’t understand how they’ve got this so wrong. We recently celebrated the centenary of the RAuxAF and, despite using the combined ‘RAF Reserves’ branding for over a decade, it was very clearly marketed as the centenary of the RAuxAF and not the RAF Reserves. The 85th anniversary of the ATC should have been treated exactly the same.
2 Likes
Alex, Blasphemous to think a WO wouldnt be a bible basher
Here’s a question, why does the CCF need to be single corps anyway (or unified corps in each school im not familiar), CCF(RAF) cadets already follow the PTS (mostly), follow AP818 and ACP1358 (mostly).
Why not split them off to seperate corps and integrate the corps with their community sponsored equivalents
RAF → ATC form RAFAC/RAFC
Army → ACF form Army Cadets UK or whatever they call themselves
RN/RM → VCC to form RNC with RNSC and RMC as constituent parts
@Baldrick I only chose the VCC over the SCC because of your janky Rank structure, also could we get the ATC/RAFAC stuff moved into a new thread?
Short answer funding. The CCF have a separate fund so don’t pay into the air cadet charity.
This means they only get classification & shooting badges Issued & have to pay for the rest.
considering the CCF is a corps in its own right it would probably cause wider implications if was stood down especially as the CCF is looking like the cheaper way to achieve cadet 30/30
1 Like
Keeping seperate funds for school based CFs is still an option, but I imagine the reason they need seperate funds is because of their Tri-service nature, if you have 3 seperate orgs, each part of a larger org then funding goes through the larger org
I don’t see, how? I’m not proposing getting rid of the idea of school based units
Good evening all,
Sorry for the delayed public reply, I did drop @JoeBloggs a private reply whilst i looked in to this.
Having engaged with the Influence & Engagement team (thank you for their quick responses to me today) and reviewed the full range of coverage from national channels, the ATC very much does exist and the events over the last few days have been about the whole of the RAF Air Cadets celebrating the 85th anniversary of the Air Training Corps, whilst the post regarding the event in London didn’t explicitly mention the Air Training Corps, the other posts had done and it wasn’t an intentional action to specifically not reference the Air Training Corps.
The intent behind our celebration events is to try and bring together all elements of the RAF Air Cadets that contribute to those celebrations, I myself attended the Greater Manchester Wing event which included cadets and volunteers from across the ATC and CCF (RAF).
Thank you for tagging me and for sharing your views though, feedback like this is always helpful for the HQ in influencing future decisions and I will ensure it forms part of my next update to Comdt.
I hope you all had a great ATC Sunday whatever you might have been up to!
Best wishes,
Ben
7 Likes
I’m glad to hear that admission. Sadly, to me, it feels like HQ has been trying to ‘brand’ it out of existence.
6 Likes
Then why was the hashtag RAFAC85 and not ATC85?
13 Likes
“RAF Air Cadets celebrate 85th anniversary of the Air Training Corps. #ATC85”
7 Likes
Respectfully, Ben, I’m going to quite strongly disagree with you.
I’m no longer involved with RAFAC in any way, so I don’t see any of the internal comms - only what’s put out externally. I don’t (and actually have never) followed any RAFAC social channels, so what I see is what the algorithm generates - akin to what the average member of the public will see.
In that scope, everything coming across is RAFAC rather than ATC.
That is the scope that members of the public see, including prospective cadets/parents. With time, it absolutely errodes the story of the ATC and makes it seem as though it doesn’t exist as an entity. I question how long it will be before the ATC has cadets/parents who don’t realise they’re actually a part of the ATC.
I have no dog in this fight, so when I say that it’s clear the presence of the ATC is being diluted and this appears to have come from the top of RAFAC downwards, I have no motive other than to speak the truth.
4 Likes
seems someone is listening/paying attention.
last night’s RAFAC News Digest 002 email which i suspect most if not all received shows ATC
and for those wanting to read the article - Sign in to your account
2 Likes
Well done, sir. Your own post gets the balance just right.
1 Like
Hmm I did not receive this 
Apologies if I wasn’t clear, my post was intended specifically in relation to communications about ATC Sunday, rather than more broadly.
From an organisation perspective our overall brand and identity is very much linked to “RAF Air Cadets”, that isn’t to erode any one particular part of the organisation but the Headquarters is the Headquarters of the RAF Air Cadets, this includes ATC, CCF (RAF) and VGS within it.
I do believe that we should be accurate when it comes to commemorative events so that they are phrased appropriately for the celebration in hand. But I do also agree that when it comes to promoting our external image, a single brand identity (RAF Air Cadets in our case) is stronger than routinely trying to promote 3 different brands.
Every unit has the right to use the appropriate authorised badge that represents ATC, CCF, VGS etc and all approved unit badges include the “Air Training Corps” or “Volunteer Gliding Squadron” within them to ensure that remains part of their individual identity.
2 Likes
This is becoming somewhat grey as well. New regional badges, and possibly wing badges, are using RAFAC, instead of ATC. Even though they are very much ATC formations. Something I’ve previously questioned.
1 Like
Like this. This is approved, so is arguably correct. But I really don’t get why this is ‘RAF Air Cadets’, not ATC.
We learn in first class that Sqns, Wings and Regions are what makeup the ATC.
1 Like
I can’t recall the year, but under one of the early RAF Air Cadet Astra initiatives, CCF (RAF) sections were aligned to their respective geographic regions rather than to the national HQ and as such any region who has applied for a new badge since then, correctly identifies as being a region within the RAF Air Cadets rather than purely ATC.
1 Like
Whilst I agree with the alignment, it was more of an administrative thing. I don’t recall ever seeing regions or wings being removed from the ATC. That seems to have just been accepted as such.
The initiative was for closer working, and if I recall correctly was that they actually came under their geographical Wing, not Region. But this is irrelevant to the Wing and Regions all being ATC formations.
Otherwise, what is the structure of the ATC?
Also @Ben_Wakefield I don’t mean to challenge you directly. It’s just that you’re here! I think there’s been an organisational shift too far without proper structure or agreement.
From my POV, it’s the ATC that has a warrent. The RAF Air Cadets is just a combined brand for all intents and purposes.
I would need to check on the formal arrangements relating to the alignment and whilst the initial intent had been to align fully to wings, this didn’t go through and instead were aligned to regions and the region CCF Liaison Officer role established. Given the Region is ultimately responsible for administering ATC Wings, Units and CCF (RAF) Sections it probably isn’t unreasonable for the Region to be considered an RAF Air Cadets Headquarters supporting ATC and CCF (RAF) units, albeit that is only my view.
And don’t worry, I know it isn’t personal and is just a forum to engage, it is clear from my conversations with a number of people in recent days that there are some who care deeply about the use of ATC vs RAF Air Cadets, there are some who say they “couldn’t care at all” and there will be the middle ground majority that don’t necessarily think about it and just go with the flow.
I find the views of all helpful and can continue to influence other colleagues across the organisation as to how things are landing.
2 Likes
…and how does the food know to go of at 0001hrs on a specific date? What happens when the clocks change? Why is it ok to eat at 2359 but gets binned at 0001?
This and many questions to Mrs B_L has lead to many comfy nights in the spare room
1 Like
I still don’t think the HQ being responsible for CCF(RAF) sections takes it out of the ATC, that will be what the Region was founded under.
I’m yet to be convinced that the RAFAC exists as a military entity, it doesn’t seem to have any founding document or statute, the warrant creating the CFC makes no mention of it, so how the College of Arms was convinced to make badges for units of it is frankly a mystery to me.
2 Likes