VR(T) Commission Change

[big_g]

I fully agree, we need to get rid of timeserved positions but
people who served the rank and fully for a set period should keep it.

[pEp]

I think there is a need for that - apparently we’ll still be senior to those of a lower rank, so it stops a CFC Sqn Ldr trying to pull rank on a regular or reserve Flt Lt.

[Bobthebuilder]

I thought that was for ceremonial purposes?

[daws1159]

No it doesn’t, because if you are an Acting Sqn Ldr you still outrank a Substantive Flt Lt that’s how acting rank works even now. (Only an idiot would go about trying to Lord it over regular officers anyway.)

[donttellhimyourname]

Don’t go giving them ideas for gods sake!

[pEp]

Yes but there are plenty of idiots.

I got that wrong then. In which case I don’t understand the need for substantive ranks either…

[Gunner]

Neither are SNCOs and they have a list of T&Cs that work fine and unless anyone can indicate otherwise match exactly those that are/were relevant for VRT

In the civilian world, managers have different T&C’s from the shopfloor workers or supervisors. With all due respect to SNCO’s within our organisation, officers manage and SNCO’s supervise and make sure things get done.

Ergo, different T&C’s. If we’re going to have a rank structure of commissioned -v- non-commissioned then there has to be lines drawn despite being here for the same reason.

We are not regulars so have not been promoted to ranks - we are wearing the rank appropriate to the post we are holding

When I was in, officers had time-served promotion up to Flt Lt, irrespective of their post.

[quote=“Biggles_Lovechild, post:1904, topic:2647”]
I imagine the walts will be scanning the new ACPs to see what post nominal they will be able to keep later - should be interesting for those that ‘done the time’ to claim FLt Lt RAF VR(T) Retd on leaving but are pushing for Sqn Ldr and above - what will theirs be on retirement??[/quote]
Not a particularly nice remark given the oneupmanship I witnessed between regular officers in the past. Hearing of competitors being promoted followed by the frantic scanning of the Air Force List and cries of “I joined before him\her and I haven’t had my promotion!”.

Are post noms for a Rank, that is fairly meaningless outside of our world, that you do not intend to use really that important?

As they are outside of the regular RAF but I’ve seen many a regular officer with their rank on their driving licences etc It’s being a tad disingenuous don’t you think, to try to suggest people are ‘walts’ simply because they’re proud of the commission they hold\have held?

I’m not advocating that we have “time served” Flt Lt promotions anymore, but if you have held a rank for a considerable period of time you shouldn’t be punished for taking a step back but still staying on to help.

Under the old rules, officers became Flt Lt (unpaid) after 9yrs service and it didn’t cost the organisation a penny more than it did to have them as a Fg Off so I cannot see any reason why they changed it other than to kick the volunteer in the teeth - again - and remind them of their ‘place’.

And that is a bit of a big bearer of mine, our RC has brought in rules that change us from the rest of the corps policies rightly or wrongly! we should all be the same policy across the board.

Exactly. This is one of the major issues within the ACO. There is no one policy to be followed by all. Members of the ACMB feel they can spin anything they like in their Rgn and it beats me WHY they can’t have one standardised procedure across the board. In many areas, I hasten to add.

They have various years of experience and are placed across the spectrum of posts and positions yet everyone of them report of being fed up, tired, hacked off, ready to bin it (two already binned it in the last month) and echo the feeling across their geographical peers.

THIS is the worrying aspect for us as staff members as it places a greater burden on those that remain. However, it doesn’t seem to bother our esteemed leadership. If it was my company, I’d be EXTREMELY worried.

[solo12002]

And a great way of saving money some walts will not like it

[Gunner]

Firstly, it wasn’t me who made the comment above - it was Biggles_Lovechild. I was simply re-quoting it.

Secondly, RC(N) has confirmed that we will still be able to retire from a VR commission.

[Gunner]

If they retire before the implementation it follows that they will not have any type of commission and would have to apply for the Cadet Forces Commission.

How so? If I retire before the changeover date, I’m retiring from the RAFVR, not RAFAC.

[daws1159]

Is there a process in place for this or will they just deem anyone with 10 years service to have retired? (Or do we have to put the retirement form in during the 24 hours we hold 2 Commissions?!)

[Biggles_Lovechild]

Sorry let me qualify my tongue in cheek original post - but as a fish bait got a few bites

RC(N) has stated that those that have met the current requirments will be able to use RAF VR(T) Retd once they finish.

What I was looking at was those that have already qualified for Flt Lt retd who are either in or pushing for Sqn Ldr posts (or above) but have not yet qualified - if they do the subsequent time they will not be able to use Sqn Ldr VR(T) retd but whatever replaces it - although can’t see RAFAC retd being in much demand

[Gunner]

My understanding is that to be granted the retired rank of Sqn Ldr RAFVR, one has to have an aggregated time in rank of at least 12 months.

[perrysghost]

My squadron has…

4x Flt Lt
2x Fg Off
1x Sgt

We used to have 2x WO in addition.

[daws1159]

I thought it was 2 years to retain rank?

[Nickel]

Surely everyone would be Fg Off Retd - acting rank can’t be held as a retired title

[daws1159]

Yes it can

[Nickel]

Reference for that please? (Genuine interest not arguing!)

[daws1159]

AP1919 Chapter 3 Para 335. “Officers who relinquish with 10 years service will be permitted to retain the highest acting rank held for not less than 1 year prior to resignation or 2 years aggregate” that is somewhat paraphrased.

[Gunner]

1 year as you mention above although I don’t understand why they insist on 2yrs aggregated.

I can only assume the 1 year means the rank has been held for that continuous period.