Or, alternatively, he simply explains to the cadets that the rules have changed and as he respects the rules he is now wearing the appropriate rank slides.
Which is a better example of leadership, no?
Are we still calling them sergeant?
I can see confusion in trying to show the difference between an OCdt and a [whatever they are].
Are we still saluting OCdts?
I guess we don’t as they don’t have their commission until post-ATF. Or has it changed again.
It never actually changed. There was a realisation that changing the date of commission to post-ATF required a change in primary legislation, so the plan was dropped.
Current state= Salute Off Cdts.
So, yes, there may be confusion.
…because current state = They are actually commissioned Pilot Officers; we just give them a naff badge and call them Officer Cadets.
[quote]Baldrick wrote:
It never actually changed. There was a realisation that changing the date of commission to post-ATF required a change in primary legislation, so the plan was dropped.[/quote]
Nope.
There is nothing in relevant primary legislation (i.e. RFA96) which affects the process of commissioning Officers. How, when, and why Officers are commissioned is down to Defence Council (i.e. Joint or sSvc) orders and regulations made under the authority of Section 4 of RFA96, e.g. VR(T) T&COS in AP1919, or RAuxAF/RAFR T&COS in AP3392 Vol.7
This gets trotted out every time by those who don’t fully understand the matter at hand (no offence, Baldrick - I assume you’re repeating what you’ve been told).
There are 2 issues:
-
Something in regulations (unsure of the reference - may be an AP, JSP, or QRs) prevents actual non-commissioned Officer Cadets from being given any command responsibility whatsoever. Thus - for example - on a UAS, there are Acting Plt Offs RAFVR(UAS) who have command authority over OCdts RAFVR(UAS).
-
RAFVR(T) T&COS in AP1919 do not currently provide for non-commissioned OCdts - and probably never will, given issue No.1
So - as you rightly point out Baldrick - VR(T) “OCdts” are (a) saluted, and (b) only known as OCdts within the ACO. They are still (as before) commissioned from their date of appointment, and are therefore effectively more akin to “pre-graduate Officers” on regular IOT.
Cheers
BTI
EDIT - What incubus said ^ 
[quote]MattB wrote:
Are we still calling them sergeant?
I can see confusion in trying to show the difference between an OCdt and a [whatever they are][/quote]
Interesting point - if the ACO was to go down the route (as per my numerous suggestions Ma’am, if you’re reading this 
) of having non-commissioned OCdts, the easiest way - at the moment - would be to have OCdts(ATC).
Arguably, the uniform for an OCdt(ATC) would be what we are now requiring pre-ATF SNCOs(ATC) to wear.
Plus, on an RAF station, our pre-ATF SNCOs(ATC) will probably be mistaken for non-commissioned OCdts RAFVR(UAS) …as their mode of dress in both No.2 and No.3 will be identical except for the ATC distinguishing badge and the white disc behind the beret badge.
#confusing.
I think this one needs re-thinking, e.g. wearing the white tab in addition to the SNCO rank slide.
Cheers
BTI
Agreed. Very much like the first draft of the Instructor Cadet insignia post-LASER wear the normal rank slide (and pin) on a white strip of cloth. Call them Acting Sergeants if you like.
For officers, do what I’ve heard suggested in that they put Plt Off braid on a white backing with VR(T) pin.
In each, their actual rank is visible, as is their status as an “untrained” member of staff.
Agreed. Very much like the first draft of the Instructor Cadet insignia post-LASER wear the normal rank slide (and pin) on a white strip of cloth. Call them Acting Sergeants if you like.
For officers, do what I’ve heard suggested in that they put Plt Off braid on a white backing with VR(T) pin.
In each, their actual rank is visible, as is their status as an “untrained” member of staff.[/quote]
This is much too much like common sense. It’ll never catch on.
In the grand scheme of things, is this such a massive problem? VR(T) officers are identical to their regular counterparts apart from the pins on the rankslides. It’s often the finer details on uniform which distinguish personnel in their respective corps.
Having said that, I prefer the idea already mentioned of something along the lines of the Plt Off braid with a white backing. Does the job nicely.
I genuinely don’t understand why it doesn’t work that way.[/quote]
Actually, I agree. The only major argument against this so far has been that it makes life difficult on RAF bases for camps. But seeing as you’re not supposed to go on camps before you pass out of ATF it’s a bit academic isn’t it?[/quote]
As my Sqn is on an RAF Base it will cause us pain :mad:
Gash solution…
3rd of June and i have seen no more clarification or “formal promulgation” which i hope would answer the points raised in this thread…
I did have an email from Wg this morning asking how many pre-ATF Sgts I had so they can order the right amount from Cranditz! But, sure enough, no clarification on anything.
I did have an email from Wg this morning asking how many pre-ATF Sgts I had so they can order the right amount from Cranditz! But, sure enough, no clarification on anything.[/quote]
I find it strange that Wing have to ask you. Isn’t this the sort of thing they should know, seeing as it’s wing that has to book people on ATF courses, and Wings that deal with the appointments of SNCOs?
I did have an email from Wg this morning asking how many pre-ATF Sgts I had so they can order the right amount from Cranditz! But, sure enough, no clarification on anything.[/quote]
I find it strange that Wing have to ask you. Isn’t this the sort of thing they should know, seeing as it’s wing that has to book people on ATF courses, and Wings that deal with the appointments of SNCOs?[/quote]
Absolutely! It was a catch all email to the whole Wg, so I’m guessing to ease the ‘burden’ of doing the footwork themselves?
I did have an email from Wg this morning asking how many pre-ATF Sgts I had so they can order the right amount from Cranditz! But, sure enough, no clarification on anything.[/quote]
I find it strange that Wing have to ask you. Isn’t this the sort of thing they should know, seeing as it’s wing that has to book people on ATF courses, and Wings that deal with the appointments of SNCOs?[/quote]
Absolutely! It was a catch all email to the whole Wg, so I’m guessing to ease the ‘burden’ of doing the footwork themselves?[/quote]
You’d have thought a few clicks of buttons up at HQAC and they could tell each wing how many there were!
you’d be lucky if they could tell you how many wings there were!
Ha that one is easy even for HQAC
Its TWO = Them and Us.
[quote=AP1358c AL 2 pg118]All SNCOs within the ACO who have not completed their SSIC at ATF RAF Cranwell, must wear white rank slides with ATC insignia when in uniform, prior to attending ATF. The only exemption will be Ex Regular Forces WOs/SNCOs, however they are still required to attend the SSIC at ATF.
[/quote]
That would be formal promulgation IMO alongside the Bader announcement.