Ok predictive texting… 
The Gazette is going to go into overdrive… a list of terminations and then a list of CFC’s… it will be the biggest publication is history
1 Like
As I start to read this as “it will be simplier to become a uniformed member of Staff” as the process will reflect the needs of a youth organisation - for example, ACF, SCC, Scouts and guides - will our process match thiers as our “needs” must be the same…no?
but then I read the closing line “while retaining the ethos of the Royal Air Force” - so we’ve lost the military “standing” of the position, but we still expect you to go through the usual hoops of military selection to wear your non-military uniform…
a chance to finally make the recruitment and appointment process slicker lost??
3 Likes
[quote=“Moist_Van_Lipwig, post:1374, topic:2647, full:true”]
As I understand it, it’s more about rationalising the ATC footprint, than disbanding squadrons.
Anytown might have 2 ATC squadrons within a few miles of each other. If they both paraded in the same building, on different days, then DIO(??) could sell off one plot of land, and RFCA only have to look after one, instead of 2. Plus the 2 squadrons could share the cost of internet access, phone rental, etc.
Sort of doing more, with less.
Makes sense on paper. Especially if you, like me, beleive that the MOD would like to decrease community units, and move them to CCFs…[/quote]
The model you suggest only works in large towns / cities where squadrons are in close proximity and good public transport infrastructure. This wouldn’t yield many.
Get out into the urban areas, squadrons are more spread out and it becomes a non-starter.
The closest squadrons to us are 6½ miles away in each direction. If you don’t drive expect a bus journey of ¾ to 1¼ hours. We all have our own local catchment areas and it’s hard enough getting kids in, let alone saying that anyone of us had to shut and use the other’s premises. Due to parental choice for schools two of us get an overlap of kids they soon gravitate to us or the other and transfer, purely down to convenience.
That seems to make more sense, but it is complete folly, but they would need to concentrate squadrons in high population areas to ensure numbers. The more remote / rural squadrons would be the ones that are less viable.
What seems to be lost in that model is that people would go as well as cadets and they might well be the qualified people who can offer the activities etc. The naivety of the people they put in charge of the ACO never fails to astound me. Remember some of these are ones who have managed downsizing in the armed forces and look how well that has gone.
CEP has been a waste of effort like we all knew it would. I only know of 2 schools locally (one 25 miles away and the other 9) that have opened CEP CCF (Army) units, one of them (25 miles away) is struggling as they have had a change of head and lost the 3 staff who ran it, the new head isn’t keen and apparently they have had to arm twist staff, and the other school has (nearly 2 years on) around a dozen cadets from a potential cohort of 950 (Yr8-11). I know this as I know a woman who works in the office there. There aren’t any ACF/ATC units within in easy travelling of the latter, and, the former has three ATC squadrons (these have around 110 cadets between them) and 5 ACF within 5 miles, all of the ATC squadrons have cadets from the school. So if the suggestion is close 8 cadet units on the premise that one closed “CEP CCF (Army)” unit will make up numbers/interest, those suggesting it are just plain stupid and shouldn’t be allowed out without one to one supervision.
Had my letter and it is a waste of paper and postage, money better spent elsewhere.
They must have used cheap envelopes as mine was open when it landed on the doormat.
The covering notes (3 pages) could have been put on one.
I’ve read it several times and I cannot see anything that benefits us in the change. The changes are for the MOD’s purpose NOT the cadet forces.
How can we with non-military commission be subjected to the same selection processes as we have had since 2011? The military seem to want to distance us from it in one breath and then in another ensure they keep us close as it serves their purpose to do so.
I wonder if they got Dennis Bergcamp to write some of it as it has more spin than one of his free kicks.
Words like contemporary are empty and meaningless BS much beloved of arty types to make them sound intellectual.
A massive opportunity to modernise the cadet forces has been squandered and lost forever in this 3rd and 6th letter of NATO phonetic alphabet.
Bergkamp, with a K. 
How about we just get on with it for the sake of the cadets? There are pages and pages here about how our rank slides will look, will we still be allowed to be members of the RAF Club, will we be saluted by regulars, can I call myself RAFVR(T) retd, etc etc. The real issues of delivering the Cadet Experience (yep, sorry about the buzz-word bingo) have been almost completely overshadowed by a significant chunk of self-centred moaning. For sure, implementation of CFC has been a shambles. But aren’t we as RAFVR(T) (sorry, RAFAC) officers meant to be above all this? The grass roots RAF will not see us as any different to last year/decade/millennium; they will judge us by how we behave and not by a few letters on our shoulder.
3 Likes
On the whole, yes but I think the point rather is that we signed up to wear a certain uniform bringing with it certain connotations and it’s now being changed to something that we’re not happy with / have not been well enough informed about.
Something, something, valued volunteers, something… etc.
It may work differently for SNCO/WO, but I signed up to work with an RAF-themed youth organisation. They issue me a uniform and they grant me a rank for use within that organisation. If they issued me with a different uniform or a different rank (or no uniform and no rank) then it would not significantly* affect my ability to do what I signed up for.
*having no uniform would make the monitoring of uniform standards a little awkward
It is what it is. I agree handled with gross incompetence however I am just going to get on with far more important things and that is ensure my cadets and staff grab every opportunity they can.
I for one am proud to be (have been) an RAFVRT Officer, but equally I will also be proud to still be an RAFAC Officer. To me its just a change of title not the duties or the responsibilities associated with the role. It will not change how I do my job as OC or how I interact with anyone. Its only a hobby at the end of the day.
I like others fear the ultimate direction this is taking; only when and if they disband the ATC may I hang up my uniform - and that is because I joined the Air Training Corps and not the CCF or some other hybrid purple organisation. That is a decision for the future should that take place.
I joined to give something back as I was once a cadet, I went into uniform to ensure the future of my Squadron and I became the OC so I could have a direct influence on its future. My cadets are achieving (yes with limited success re shooting and flying etc) but they are still achieving and the Squadron is strong. We have top quality equipment despite our demo-graphical area making fundraising difficult at times. Will a change to TOR’s, Post Nominals and COS change that for me?
Simple answer is no I am not going to let this get in the way of delivering for my cadets. But I am also not going sing from the rooftops how glorious this all is - because it isn’t; it could have been handled so much more positively and could have really engaged us all.
6 Likes
I am curious as to where the ultimate decision to adopt the CFC across the cadet forces lay and who dictated the timescales which, for various reasons, we have fail to meet.
1 Like
As I said the military especially the RAF has always seen VRT as civilians looking after kids and the general public has always seen VRT as RAF officers. Now The military will see CFC as civilians looking after kids and the general public will see CFC as RAF officers. Same old same old right time to iron mi shir
1 Like
I remain of the opinion that the whole introduction of this has been handled very badly, with little coherence and a general degrading of personal goodwill between many of the VR(T) I know and the organisation as a whole.
I accept that going forward and delivering the Cadet experience then the change in status of us, should have no impact as the Cadets, public and RAF personnel we come across will know no different and that we will still be ‘cadet officers’.
However, as many of us had been told over the past decades that we were part of the RAF, albeit obviously not full time, or anything other than VR(T), it remains extremely disappointing to be told that we are being kicked out of the Royal Air Force. Some of us took pride in being a very small part of the RAF immediate family but as of November I will be no more than a cadet leader, rather than a direct link between the Cadets and the RAF.
That may be an irrational concept to hold (and possibly always incorrect), but that is how I feel the change is downgrading my contribution.
The task of the leaders in the RAFAC now is to show, going forward, that it does indeed value the volunteer and come through with some of the ‘simpler’ ways of working to make this feeling go away. Hopefully it will and I will continue in my current ‘uniformed’ role, but if not then I can easily see the way forward to becoming one of the polo and sweatshirt master race of CI’s in my future.
3 Likes
I’ve been NEP for some time, partly for personal reasons (if I’m honest those are spurious) but mostly because of the appalling way that the CAC, ACMB, and RAF, have handled this and many other issues.
I have struggled with whether to return at all and, if so, in what capacity. I have decided to return as a CI though I am not renewing any of my (numerous) qualifications in shooting or adventurous training because the opportunity to exercise them is so limited. I shall consign my pace stick and boots to history and return to where I began, and try to help the cadets while I attempt to care about the Corps again.
The Corps has no pre-ordained right to exist or to be successful. Judging it on the performance of the past decade it may not be worth saving.
Got my letter yesterday… was rather underwhelmed as anticipated.
(And yes for the old timers, it is I, Perry).
7 Likes
Will you be dropping “drill” from your username?
3 Likes
I’m not convinced the processes are or will be simpler just by virtue that new officers will still have to go to OASC. Making processes simpler would be not having to go to OASC and having exactly the same process as all other staff in the ATC.
OK you could sort of see the extremely flimsy arguments wrt VR(T) that we were RAF Officers after a fashion and a few supposed moans about VR(T) led to in 2011/12 having to start going through an OASC process, despite 65+ years of not having to. But now we are not RAF Officers just youth leaders in an organisation with ever loosening ties to the RAF, who happen to wear an RAF uniform and still ‘the RAF’ wants us to go through a pointless process. for what purpose? SNCOs don’t have to do anything special so why should Officers?
I do wonder how committed they really are to simplified processes as they have failed the initial test. Do they actually understand what the word simple and all of it’s synonyms mean? They seem to have a pretty good grasp of it antonyms.
Lol at least you have the option of looking there’s none and no dealers doing SNCO ones untill 2018 pmsl
I feel exactly the same was and many I talk to also do.
As Mark Hamill sail while filming for Star Wars 7 “everything has changed but nothing has changed”. I get the impression that there are many fine words on the admin reduction burden and simplified TOCs etc, etc BUT nothing will change on the 1 Nov except our commissions. And as with the Admin Burden Reduction teams fine record the ACO will not change into the RAFAC.
The CFC is like brexit, we will be leaving the EU but all of the EU laws have be signed into British law. There will be no pressure on HQAC to change anything after 2 Nov. Nothing I have seen so far will make me believe the change to CFC will make my job as a Sqn Cdr any easier. #SadFace
3 Likes
That depends if he will be keeping the VR(T) for his AEF functions, doesn’t it?
If you haven’t received one today, I’ll post mine up!
The only TOR we need is
- turn up do something to make the cadet’s time worth their effort of coming
nothing more nothing less
Nice and simple and something all buy into.
We don’t need long lists of convoluted and inappropriate statements.
1 Like