Of a fourth option: the trip service board have released details to HQAC of the finer details or responded to HQAC concerns which were raised at the ACMB / OC WinGs & RC conference.
There seems to be the standard dripfeed of information from somewhere to engender confusion and discontent.
If this is happening rather than faff around HQAC should just send it out.
One I can see happening is HQAC coming up with an idea of how to work it and then having to change causing complete confusion.
This to me smacks of the everyone needs min BELA to do AT by x around 14 years ago that came from nowhere, to a more relaxed grandfather rights and 2 year timeframe to get it done IIRC, when it was realised that there wasnât enough time or courses available and basic AT would just stop. I think there will be something like downgrade at renewal or resign. It is rude to say those that resign are in any way bad, it might just offer them the option without too much hassle and provide the natural break-point. What they need to be careful of is a lot of people saying no thanks and not having enough officers and forever playing catch up.
Maybe if HQAC had got onboard with DYER rather than trying to protect their own positions in the prospect of changes to the way CF are run, they may have had more say in developments like this. I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge and changes will happen to us, rather than us (HQAC on our behalf) having any say in things.
Mind you all of this might be a moot point if the RAF is subjected to further cuts / losses, loses its status as a stand alone force and becomes essentially an air transport âregimentâ.
Right, a straight question, then. Will it be the case that those awarded a commission from April 2017 for volunteer service with the Air Cadet Organisation continue to be appointed to the RAF Volunteer Reserve, or not?
Will it be the case that those awarded a commission from April 2017 for volunteer service with the Army Cadet Force continue to be appointed to the Army Reserve, or not?
Because it appears to be the stated case earlier in this thread that Officers serving with the Sea Cadet Corps will now be formally commissioned, as opposed to just wearing a rank and having honorary RNR post-nominals.
[B]Or[/B]: are we saying that there will now be a [U]single[/U] Cadet Forces Commission purple scroll, officer-only-within-Cadets status, & with common entry standards/selections/process; and, that nobody appointed to such a commission will be formally Gazetted any more?
I donât think theyâve thought about any of that.
The problem wrt us is the knock on effect for the RAF if the ATC Officers are no longer VRT and we have a cadet forces command structure, what will happen to the people at HQAC and Regions. There are a number of RAF people there who will need new homes or face redundancy.
Almost this. Cadet Forces Commission. Officer only in cadet forces. Entry standards and selection will be force specific. HQAC want people to be gazetteer, army donât. SSC arenât bothered.
As I said before, a small selection of people will continue in the VRT to a) keep it alive and b) because of their employment appointments thanks to Barbara Cooper.
I had a chance encounter with two army officers from the DYER team a few years ago in the bar. We chatted and they asked to meet for lunch off site to sound out a few thoughts. It was quite clear they (army) were steering things. They wanted to cancel all our training structure and have purple training scheme. Cancel remuneration as it was upsetting the SSC. Have more of an Army structure with more HQ positions at local level comprising of ex forces employed to RFCA but able to claim expenses for the CF honarary role. Get rid of civilians from the ACO. Have a single platform for IT (Westminster) and have one head which would be army centred because it wouldnât be possible to appoint a rotating chief of the cadet forces because of military appointment processes (would have to be an external job of civilian in uniform).
Ultimately the CEF shot DYER in the foot. No one saw it coming and it was a fudge by the government to install discipline in schools. Essentiall, and I alluded to it elsewhere, the CCF will become to future model and main operating policy for CF. Sadly it makes sense. Estates becomes the schools problem. Staffing becomes the schools problem (build into teacher contracts). Removes the 18+ problem from the ACO. Removed finance issues (ACF âirrrgularitiesâ on units, ACO Civ comms removed). Improves governance (no local walts doing their own things as the school have more of a control with the addition of the full time Test NCOs).
You saw it here First Ladies and gents.
Hmm, but from the CCF side of the fence - very little control over what happens in CCFs as the sServices are not in the Chain of Command.
Now, using WESTMINSTER for everything, thereâs an ideaâŚ
Just a thoughtâŚbut havenât we just spent the last 75 years trying to get more closer ties with our parent service? The RAF commission is one link to the service. If the ACF or the other cadet forces want commissions why donât they push for their own? The RAF has the highest regard to the ACO and this is why we should keep the VRT commission because there is no reason to get rid of it. Or as previously mentioned the SNCO cadre would sooner be moved to VRT. Looking at it April '17 looks too near for this kind if change to come in, and if this was true why hasnât it been plastered across BADER and mailboxes alike?
Read the whole thread for the reasons why
Why do we need a VRT anything?
I think some âVRTsâ just want is for the status.
We donât need it to run the ACO. I wonder how many âOfficersâ would leave if they lost their plastic commission?
There are a lot of dedicated VRTs, NCOs and CIs who will carry on the good work no matter what they are called. Alas there a a lot of wannabes tooâŚ
1 Like
^ this
And some words for minimum post
It seems to me that the âpowers that beâ seem determined to disband the ACO. Look at the way gliding has been handled. Now they want to get rid of VR(T) commission and replace it with some worthless cadet commission! I know there hasnât been any formal announcements, but from my VGS experience Iâm inclined to believe that there is some fact in the rumours. Rumour is all we had to go on during the last 2 years of our VGS operations.
Why is the organisation being treated this way? Things happen that donât appear to make any sense to those of us on the ground (including VGS aircrew!) My understanding is that the MOD didnât want civvies flying its aircraft, hence scrapping CGIs; however, if the ACO scraps VR(T) wonât former VR(T) VGS aircrew become civilian pilots in uniform? Then thereâs the difficulty getting paperwork back from Wing and HQAC. I heard that the ACO is desperately short of uniformed and non-uniformed staff. We all have our reasons for volunteering, and most of us understand that VR(T) is not the same as regular, but from a cadet point of view, I think it is important to have that link with the RAF. Iâm willing to consider a VR(T), but I think Iâd rather remain a CI if the ACO abolishes VR(T) commissions. My main reason for wanting a VR(T) is to make life easier on military bases. Iâm not interested in being a Walt (I am successful in my civilian life). If the RAF/MOD/ACO can offer CIs formal recognition on military bases (e.g. a civilian contractor ID card), then Iâd be more than happy to remain a CI. Why canât they treat volunteers as a precious resource and offer more incentives to retain dedicated staff?
1 Like
I too would consider my position if my VR(T) commission was removed.
It has nothing to do with the status of the commission. Iâm sure a cadet forces commission would work equally well.
It has everything to do with the way itâs handled and how it feels from the organisation. It makes me feel under valued. It makes me feel like they donât believe we can be credible ârealâ officers. It makes me feel like they donât want the link with the RAF.
I work dammed hard for roughly 35 hours a month minimum on top of my 35 hour a week day job to ensure that my staff and cadets get the best they can. It feels like, however true it is, no one recognises that and couldnât care less.
5 Likes
The last 2 posts are spot on It makes little difference BUT the point I make time and time and again and some tend to ignore itâŚ
We joined the VRT with that came very little rights but quite a lot of responsibility and requirements and signed a contract agreeing to fulfil these.
If they now have decided to change to a purple commission then have the decency to actually say so, they may not have the final version of âcontractâ completed but at least say something not just keep quiet and then bring it in the back door.
The CAC goes on about communication on Facebook this is one of the biggest changes in the aco and we have heard nothing!
PPP Is how I rate it
I believe that OC Wings are aware of this forthcoming change, so it depends in reality how much of this they share with wider volunteer staff.
A short search on SharePoint found a number of HQAC Updates being shared with the Wing in question, something that must be commended, as while an expectation is not actually the case while senior staff continue to build their ivory tower.
Itâs good to see someone taking the information they have and saying something.
If others did the same then it would be beneficial for all
its funny,
I received the very same via an OC and we are in a seperate region.
I know there are OCs on this thread so I a guessing it wasnât an all-OCs email dump but it would seem the document has been widely passed outâŚ
1 Like
Our OC would have mentioned this Iâm sure so probably not a Corps wide distribution.
1 Like
Would you communicate this via social media?
This is far too important a subject to do like that, itâs not like taking a picture of your dinner or some moronic selfy or fake smile ridden grip and grin.
Communication has never been a strong suit of HQAC unless itâs do it and do it now or this is stopping, because weâve messed up.
HQAC should have sent it out Corps wide to all addresses with a fully detailed plan of what the new process will be or if it stays the same and what current VRTâs options are, if staying as VRT isnât an option. If this is happening from Apr next year, coming up with a plan a week before isnât particularly professional. Keeping it within the sphere of a few Wing Cdrs isnât really on as theyâll have no more idea about things than anyone else. I know I used to ask for staffâs views if something came out asking for a COs input, just because all staff should haves some input.
1 Like