VR(T) Commission Change


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.


Solo 12002,
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.


Have they got rid of time served Wing Commander now for contingent commanders?


I believe so.


Always found that odd. Especially when they are run by a Wing Commander at HQAC level when the numbers would suggest they should be treated like a region and given a Group Captain. Made for a very top heavy organisation


Time served promotion to Wg Cdr is still very much in JSP313, but again, that’s something that I believe will be abolished. It just takes longer in a tri-service organisation.

That said, it’s not necessarily inappropriate for the commanding officer of a CCF of 400+ cadets to be a Wing Commander - compare that to the size of some ATC wings…

I’m sure Wg Cdr CCF would be delighted to be a Gp Capt - but remember the CCF(RAF) is (in a complicated way I can’t summarize in a sentence) ‘part of the Army’ as well as part of the RAFAC. You’re right that we are effectively the size of a region.