No one in the real ATC has had any say where the RAFAC goes, this has been decided by people playing at Air Cadets.
MOD90 changes every time they issue it, my latest one doesn’t have CFAV anymore but now says “Cadet Forces” where my original one said “Reserve Forces”
It’s not really a thing for us! Normally a Sgt is a Sgt! There are similarities in rank and position across arms. If we need to define the arm we just add RAF at the end. It only really applies to (L)Cpl, Sgt & WO as all the others are different anyway.
Besides, people will be able to tell that you’re RAF because we’re cleverer
One thing to remember though is that civilian or military the officer will hold a Queen’s commission which does give them a different (note ‘different’ not necessarily ‘better’) status from SNCO, hence the use of postnominals. NCOs in the parent service don’t get postnominals so this is simply following that pattern.
Personally I’m getting bored of the “1 type of rank slide for NCOs and another for officers.” This is simply a matter of practicality for to the braid used for officer ranks and again follows the pattern of the parent service.
What about those in RAFR / RAuxAF?
Seems odd that we are following a precedent that isn’t the case…
Does it not say Sqn Letter CFAV for example I know any I have seen says it while SNCO says Sgt (ATC) lol
Nope, my old one did my latest one doesn’t have CFAV on it at all.
There’s no distinction anymore between regulars and reserves we’re all RAF. Auxiliaries don’t wear the A anymore.
When will all this prevarication stop?
I have ranted a lot on this issue, but it has, and will not, affect my commitment to my Cadets at my Squadron! I will continue no matter what I am called, what I wear or whether the RAF want us or not!
But how much more Staff time will take up, when there are so many more important issues that requires attention?
No one questions any member of staff delivering what we all do with cadets. The issue for many is the RAF and HQAC brought in branding, branding that was NOT of our choice they had decided the outcome before we were asked. Secondly the so called selling point of the new branding was to make us all equal it has not and like it or not folks have the right to debate and bring up issues . I mean they now admit they don’t get size etc right in the order. As for staff time, no offence I don’t know you started to be paid 24 hours for your work as a member of staff I don’t, therefore we do have the right to debate things etc in our own time. Which for the record I’m doing now
Can any CCF types confirm if their staff have to attend OASC for a commission or not?
He means staff time with relation to Staff Officers, who could be more productively employed trying to sort out flying, or gliding, or minibuses, or shooting, or uniform contracts, or accommodation, or any of the 400 far more important things* facing the ACO (ha!) than the titles and commissions of its Officers.
*Or digging canals in South Georgia with their fingernails in the case of a particular Air Commodore with a Twitter fetish…
This reply contradicts a response from RC(N) who said that they had decided with the CACWO that officers and Sncos would be the same IE Sgt J Bloggs RAFAC
ACP 20 Version 7 - No OASC for CCF
The post-nominals one was a little confusing - the case is generally that commissioned officers can use the post-nominals of the organisation of which they are a part; eg RAF, RAuxAF, RAFVR, RN, army regiments/corps, etc.
Previously, therefore we were entitled to the post-nonimals RAFVR (people generally added the T to avoid accusations of walting, athough it’s not strictly correct to do so); SNCOs had no automatic right to post-nominals and so the pattern [Rank] (ATC) [Name] existed to avoid making it look like post-nominals.
I had seen somewhere that the plan was for all RAFAC ranks to use the post-nominals RAFAC; as this appears to have quietly slipped away I’d hazard a guess that it’s because the person who decided this didn’t realise that they can’t just make up their own post-nominals willy-nilly.
I know, that’s why I’m questioning it.
And I’ve just seen that time served Flt Lt is still available for the CCF. Ummm, remind me again how we’re now all the same.
Changes to the CCF promotion structure would require a rewrite of JSP313. As always, it’s the J that’s the problem. But I wouldn’t rule it out, because the Army have wanted to abolish time served promotions for years. It might just take a little while to catch up. (That’s an opinion not a leak, but based on previous statements made by the Army.)
What we can’t have is different promotion in different CCF sections - that would be unfair, and is indeed why the CCF still has a LCpl (was JCpl) rank.
Angus has given the answer I was going to!
The reason I said what I said about commitment is some people have told me to stop moaning and get on with the change. They have called me a dinosaur, a Walt and a Mood Hoover!
Just for highlighting why we have to spend so much time fixing something when it wasn’t broken!!!
It’s OK because there aren’t many time-served CCF Flt Lts, as most of them have been Sqn Ldrs due to some past position and have been allowed to retain that rank instead.