VR(T) Commission Change


Update on SharePoint. Removal of VR(T) pushed back again…


When to now? Can’t access “Bader” at work.


Link or location, cant find anything stating that.


I got an automatic alert saying the same, however if I go to view the alert it doesn’t show. I would guess someone added it then quickly deleted it.


Yes, it seems it has been quickly deleted…

It said this, but perhaps a mistake?

​Update to VR(T). The removal of the VR(T) commission from RAFAC officers is subject to approval by the Air Force Board. The anticipated date for the AFB to approve the removal was by 1 Dec 17. This date has now been revised and it is anticipated that the Air Force Board will approve the removal of the VR(T) within the next 2 weeks. Update to follow.


So we were told that IT WAS 01 DEC and now the wording is it was ANTICIPATED BY 01 DEC.

Maybe I have a different way of interpreting English, but if someone told something WAS going to happen, I would expect it to happen, however ANTICIPATED would suggest it might happen, but don’t hold your breath.


@DJRice hoping you can answer this, what is the precedent for NCOs declaring that they are RAF and not RN etc.

Whilst Flt Lt Joe Bloggs RAFAC makes sense for officers, Sgt (RAFAC) Joe Bloggs does not, as previously the rank was Sgt (ATC), now the case is appointed to the rank of Sgt serving in RAFAC.

I’m sure I’ve seen all regulars follow the officer example…


Do you think that the VR commissions have not been removed and HQAC are indeed carrying on regardless.


Surely a quick telephone call to your HQ would confirm your status.


Considering the conversation I had with my WExO a few weekends ago information is not been cascaded down the CoC. Probably because the process is still ongoing and vet to be finalised.


People need to know where they stand, are they commissioned RAFVR(T) or RAFAC. In most cases it probable doesn’t matter but consider if a serious incident occurred resulting in disciplinary action. What action taken would be depend on the commission held.
At this stage of the game there should be no ambiguity. To me it smacks of sloppy staff work.


If it’s been removed then was prob a mistake, even the commission page shows th least message of saying it was removed on 02 Dec.

Either way what does it matter, CFC is well and truely in force now.


It doesn’t matter what they call us nothing much changes, we’l still be at squadrons trying to do what we should do. The exception is that Officers will officially become civilians in uniform and our military masters have no real recourse to do anything to anyone.


Confused by this post are we not all RAFAC


Yes, however according to the Ask The Team the correct rank post nominal is;

Flt Lt Joe Bloggs RAFAC
Sgt (RAFAC) Joe Bloggs

Just looking for the precedent here…


This gets silly we should just all be RAFAC after our name the idea of the change was to bring us all in line with each other not split us apart. I.mean 1. Mod 90 officer has CFAV SNCO has Sgt (ATC) yet we are all referred to CFAV . 2 officers now civs like SNCO and rather have one type of rank slide we have one lot for officers and one for SNSOs and yet now none of us are in the RAF we are all civs . And now we have the RAFAC before or after the name it springs to mind that officers still think they are better than the rest despite being civs now


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 :wink:


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.