Sorry, I got that wrong. She was told in May that she didn’t have to salute anyone with VRT any more.
Not that being saluted bothers me in the slightest
It just shows how much HQAC are either lying or out of touch with what is happening!!!
That’s it then. If that is correct then we are the Air Scouts but without their freedom and with leadership who outright lie to us. I thought this was still going to be a Queen’s commission (which does not otherwise exist in the civilian world except for Lord Lieutenants - who are pseudo military appointments when one looks at the criteria) so why not salute us unless we are now just to be considered a bunch of Walts which is what this clusterf… Suggests is how we are seen by HQAC/RAF/MOD
would be worth putting that statement on the Ask the Team for the RC to answer it
2 Likes
Really? No such order has reached our ears at Odiham. VRT weren’t even mentioned during basic/trade/Ft training. The only info for VRT was promulgated from ex cadets. Hell, instructors would only comment on on this if some poor soul ordered an eyes left/right on UAS cadet.
1 Like
Yeap. Obviously it could just be someone misinterpreting what they’ve been told to teach, and informing students what they think they mean.
I’ll bring it up in the morning…
Then to ignore what is literally hundreds of years of combined cadet forces experience - experience that she and others at a senior level severely lack - means that there is a fundamental absence of leadership ability at the very top of our organisation. How the hell can she think that she can provide inspirational leadership when she drowns out those who voice valid concerns and instead concentrate on those who praise her?
‘Laalaa’ land indeed.
It has been said many times on this thread that it’s not so much what is happening vis-a-vis change of commission\being paid compliments etc but the way in which such changes are being implemented and communicated.
My business operates nationwide and if I ran it along the lines of the ACO\RAFAC\Whatever someone will want to call it next week, I’d have no staff left.
Oh wait…
Nor I.
1 Like
I hope you did not take my comment personally Gunner,
Just after getting my Letter and FAQs crap I just still can’t believe that in the ACO/RAFAC it was a top question of
“do we still get saluted”
I felt there were more important question to be asked but the FAQs that were
include I felt were picked perhaps not so much as what was really being asked queried but
more of “if Loose my VR(T) status then I loose my perks, my wee freebies or the walter mitty feeling” so it made out those who were questioning the change were only interested in themselves
and not the cadets.
I’ve deleted spam, and people complaining about spam. Please keep it relevant.
2 Likes
3 Likes
I certainly didn’t take your comment personally. I meant it when I said I don’t personally care who salutes who within the regular\VRT\RAFAC world.
Saluting doesn’t add to the cadet experience. I also mentioned (then later deleted) that when I was Wg Trg Off, I tried to reduce the number of times cadets saluted officers. Some VR(T) wanted the kids to salute them every 5mins but during our training weeks, I instructed the cadets to salute officers once in the morning and again at the end of the working day.
Some commissioned staff of course, were a little put out by this.
1 Like
Don’t you mean ‘sperm’? 
1 Like
or stand to attention if there is an officer or NCO inside a 3mile radius 
they should be put out…on their ear
1 Like
You are spot on, one of the problems we have in the organisation is that we are seeing staff getting pushed to the top without any real experience on how a sqn or the cadets operate only on what they may do in the outside world. I know of, a senior member of staff (need to watch what I say) that has NEVER been to any camp, OC or Adj at a Sqn, spent <1 year as a sqn staff member but is now right up helping make decisions…
look at the Camp staffing review they had, they never took into consideration about duty and driving periods and expect camps to be run with only 6 staff for 40 cadets.
2 Likes
Please keep on topic.
One would of thought that the introduction of the new commission would of opened up the opportunity to making Officer Cadet RAFAC (post-OASC, but pre-OIC) non-commissioned a la RAF etc, and commission/gazetted etc upon completion of OIC…
Now it seems like they won’t bother considering they’re renaming Officer Cadet to Acting Pilot Officer…
1 Like
[quote=“theunknown, post:1573, topic:2647, full:true”]
One would of thought that the introduction of the new commission would of opened up the opportunity to making Officer Cadet RAFAC (post-OASC, but pre-OIC) non-commissioned a la RAF etc, and commission/gazetted etc upon completion of OIC…
Now it seems like they won’t bother considering they’re renaming Officer Cadet to Acting Pilot Officer…[/quote]
Why do anything with OASC? Where on earth does that sit in the equation for non RAF Officers, other than keeping a few people busy?
We are not RAF Officers anymore so nuts to the RAF. The RAF have colluded in removal of the VR(T), so why should we CFC Officers go to OASC? if it means some Officers bumbling around in OASC are made to bumble somewhere else or made redundant, so be it.
The process for Officers should be exactly the same as for SNCO; interview at Wing and then ATF course. Not even going back to the old RC chat process, that had worked for years prior to the introduction of the OASC process.
TBH I have not seen any difference between the new sort and us old lags. They start all enthusiastically and soon find their enthusiasm get them nowhere, other than tired.
3 Likes
You’re missing the point I was getting at.
Regardless whether it’s tea and biscuits at WHQ/RHQ or OASC, Officer Cadets should be non-commissioned until they complete OIC, then be commissioned and gazzetted…
This stops the confusion with cadets and staff if/when they come across a RAFAC Officer Cadet (ahem, APO) and a regular Officer Cadet or RAFVR(UAS) Officer Cadet etc…
I note with interest the various comments on this thread concerning the issue of experienced members of the organisation, with a wealth of knowledge, being ignored by those at the top. Perhaps the reason is that while there are a large number of sensible suggestions they get lost because of the ill thought out and quite frankly rude comments made about the CoC.
The senior officers within the RAFAC live in a world that is shaped by the realtime financial constraints of an overstretched defence budget, a defence estate that is ill-fitted to support future requirements and responsibilities for an organisation that are not the first concern of AOC 22Gp and those above him, to list a few. Their FTRS status was forced on the RAFAC by a unilateral decision of the Civil Service(CS) in 2008/9 that CS Terms and Conditions of Service were incompatible with holding a commision ( at the time for example you could not be disabled and hold a commission). If the leadership of the organisation was to remain in uniform and be able to be taken seriously in major RAF decision making forums, then FTRS was the only sensible choice.
Many seem to fear that the change in commissioned status will mean there will be even more direction from the top and less chance to be heard and contribute. If we, as experienced volunteers, wish to be taken seriously then I suggest we need to use the correct tools for the job which include the development of thought-out proposals for change which, if presented correctly, should generate an appropriate response. Sniping from the sidelines will get no response other than a defensive circling of the waggons.
As a starter for 10 ( and in brief outline only) I have always thought that the management structure is ill suited for the organisation. Semi independent penny packets of individuals spread thinly across the country. In each region (on the assumption of 5 Wings) there used to be 2.5 personnel per wing (total 12.5), at RHQ an additional 4 bringing the total to 16.5. Why not bring those posts together, cut out a layer of management, establish specialist leads for specific delivery areas, ensure they is always someone to talk to by staggering the working day to include evening work and a responsible on call duty officer each w/e. There is a danger that a single group can be salami sliced but if the tasks are correctly assigned then the numbers should be defensible. The current configuration was designed back in the 1960s, like the commission, it may be time for a change.
If this post is too far off topic I hope the mods will advise/relocate.
3 Likes