Or as the saying goes “Shy bairns get nowt”
“Both valid points and a big part of the argument for for units wanting to use BGA clubs…yet HQRAFAC still says no…go figure!”
So is this HQRAFAC, or higher up the CoC. If it’s at the HQRAFAC level, what is their motivation or is it just a power trip thing and an unwillingness to think of alternatives or would that make them have to deal with the issue. It is far easier to say no than do the work.
An interesting model could be the Dutch cadets, it’s a combined venture of their Air Force, civil aviation and industry: http://www.nlac.nl
1 Like
Was it not the point of becoming RAFAC that there is nothing higher?
You are mixing up RAFAC with the CFC, which are related but not the same.
There may be nothing higher in the path of appeals for CFC holders, but the re-branding of RAFAC is a symptom of us being the RAF’s bitch in many ways and the RAF becoming publicly ineffectual and needing to absorb us to a greater extent.
2 Likes
That was for the change in the status of those in uniform which removed the ability to redress grievence higher than HQAC previously a redress could be taken as high as the Sovereign, after going through the Air Council.
The AoC RAFAC must be responsible to someone in the RAF CoC.
With the way RAFAC are acting with slowly closing down open squadrons and embracing the CCF including a budget uplift from the DoE and a five year contract with a perceived move from the inner cities to the suburbs (the nice areas) with little trouble. Look at the map above.
Chris who? You only see him when it’s the Olympics for cycling, other than that he does a better job than David McCallum as the invisible man.
I never understood getting him as a hon Gp Capt when he only gets media exposure every 4 years and with increasing irrelevance to our membership. He might get rolled out for comment given the news to run down Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome.
We seem to get people whose profile is on the backslide.
May be our next ambassadors should be those running social media sites or some fatuous celebrity from one of the many crap Saturday night programmes.
that was the point i am making…
“…is they don’t get used…” - CH is used less often than CV…!!
at their disposal yet we barely see one as much as we could.
I thought Chris had stood down as an ambassador quite shortly after appointment as he couldn’t commit to the workload. Even if he is still on the books, it is no burden on us.
Carol is a much better fit as an ambassador.
2 Likes
What workload? The occasional grip and grin?
He wasn’t competing when he took this on.
CV might be a better fit as we are forced into becoming more gender aware purely for the sake of having more women around. However she isn’t getting used to push and promote us with many commercial companies that could benefit us, such as in the example of this thread. Shoving them into grip and grins for cadet presentations, parades and other internal promotion is not using them to their best. Like it or not celebrity and sex sells so let’s use it, be that men or women who may be regarded as visually appealing. Unfortunately this doesn’t really apply to female RAF Officers.
It is funny how many ordinary staff in the ATC see this as the case and all the while those on substantial salaries living the RAF dream don’t admit (for obvious reasons don’t want to queer their pitch) it we won’t evolve and give the cadets the experience they really deserve.
i did wonder if he had stood down, although never to be relied on, Wikipedia shows he was appointed but not that he stood down
There isn’t even a mention on his website about being appointed, no photos or anything linking or associated with cadets. Either didn’t bother or been there done that get rid.
He signed to do 3 appearances;
Uniform Fitting
Red Arrows Flight
LASER Field Day
We asked for me, he wanted more money to fit in his schedule we politely declined… the rest as the say is Carol
As far as im aware, there is nothing stopping cadets from taking up experience flights with civilian pilots other than the cost?
Annex C Part 306 lists flights in non-MOD aircraft, including helicopters as requiring the operator to hold public liability insurance.
So why hasn’t anybody told the ‘senior’ staff in the ACO of this or is it keepng control and jobs for the ‘boys’ on FTRS pay?
No point in using CV to push us with organisations of HQAC won’t let us do it anyway as it will step on teb toes of an empire.
1 Like
ACTO35… & currently a “hold” on all flights in non-Service aircraft. If that has been rescinded, not so notified.
It seems we have to lose the Empire and the Sith Lord.
If they do it privately nothing can stop them, the fact the MOD/RAF/ACO is so anti AIR cadets flying (or doing anything come to that) is a matter for their conscience.
Although I would imagine those blocking cadets flying using commercial/private providers, don’t have a conscience.