Prompted by a few questions asked on here over the last days really, out tonight at a do and a few questions came up from a CI and I was actually unsure of the answers when you think deeper that the superficial.
Why do we have VRT commissioned officers- could they not just be “a” commission like a cadet commission, looks the same etc. Or is there actually a point to them holding a real commission- and not the same old answers about under the Armed forces act and can be court marshalled because we never will be will in reality.
If we did not have VRT Commissions what would we have?
Why are Squadron Commanders Flight Lts? Shuld the be or could they be a lower rank, Say Plt Off/Sgt with staff officers at Fg Off for most, Flt Lt for seniors, Wings Commanded by Squadron Leaders. In the RAF Squadrons are commanded by Wing Commanders so why not reverse the rank inflation?
Why are SNCO’s not VRT?
If the Commissions were removed, would the corps collapse or are CI’s more than capable of running things. Would all the VRT leave because they are only motivated by the Uniform?
I must admit that I have not thought some of the answers through and when pinned down by a very Switched on CI was a bit wrong footed.
[quote=“Operation Archway” post=6117]Why, do people keep posting in Introductions?
I’m guessing you wanted it here instead.[/quote]
I think I can answer that- I reckon it’s because the first-listed heading in the index of topic headings is ‘Intros’, as a top-down default, so it keeps springing back when you’re drafting a new thread. So unless they’re careful, forum members will tend to post accidently in that topic. Caught me once, I then remembered it so much that I forgot to mention it to DJR or mods.
wilf_san
ps I believe I can answer the OP too, but I’ll shut-up for now
[color=#0000ff]1. Why do we have VRT commissioned officers- could they not just be “a” commission like a cadet commission, looks the same etc. Or is there actually a point to them holding a real commission- and not the same old answers about under the Armed forces act and can be court marshalled because we never will be will in reality[/color][/quote]
From a technical perspective, we have Officers commissioned into the Training branch of the RAFVR (sorry to be pedantic, but whilst “VR(T) commission” is useful and commonly accepted shorthand, it is not really an accurate description) because the ATC Royal Warrant says so:
[quote]Schedule to ATC Royal Warrant wrote:
Commissioning of Officers. Officers appointed to the Corps shall hold commissions as officers in the Training Branch of Our Air Force Volunteer Reserve and shall be governed by the Regulations prescribed for that Reserve, in so far as the same are applicable to them and subject to such modification as Our Defence Council may direct.[/quote]
As to the original intent and purpose behind the original Air Ministry decision to commission ATC Officers into the RAFVR(T) …good question well presented. There is no doubt in my mind that it has made integration of the ATC with the RAF easier, and does allow “ATC Officers” to get things done if push comes to shove. I suspect the details of the decision will be in a file somewhere in the National Archives with papers related to the formation of the ATC.
Oh, and BTW, VR(T) Offrs have been court-martialled in the past …although I agree these days you are more likely to be booted and dealt with by the Police and civilian Courts for any offences serious enough to warrant a CM.
This is what is currently being considered by the volunteer T&COS review …if you mean “what would we have if we did not have the Queens Commission”, then the answer is either:
An honorary commission - like SCC Offrs, who hold an honorary commission (which confers no legal authority) in the SCC branch of the RNR.
A Royal Warrant - like a regular WO’s Royal Warrant, and akin to the status afforded to Royal Observer Corps (ROC) Officers (have I got that right wilf_san?).
An “ATC commission” - like a WO(ATC)'s Warrant …i.e. a “commission” that would hold no authority whatsoever outside the ATC/Cadet Forces.
An interesting question. I suspect because Plt Off was originally viewed as a “training rank”, as it is in the RAF, with (almost) automatic time-served promotion to Fg Off, and the fact that Flt Lt is the “senior” junior officer rank - leads to the view that it is the most appropriate rank for a Sqn Cdr.
I’m not sure about your “rank reversal” …not sure this is necessary, but I think it would be a very good idea to reduce the number of Officers established in the ATC to make it more akin to the RAF. I would guess that the Officer-NCO ratio is significantly higher in the ATC than in the RAF, although in the post-LASER Review ATC, this must be gradually changing (any figures anyone?)
A good question. Don’t forget that, pre-LASER there were no SNCOs, only WOs. I don’t know why it was not considered appropriate for WOs (and thus later SNCOs) to serve in the VR(T) …as I have said before, were it to be considered appropriate, there is no reason why they could not be re-mustered into the VR(T) - and again, this is something being considered by the T&COS review.
Even if Officers serving with the ATC were no longer to be appointed to a Queens Commission, there would still be uniformed officers, they just would not hold the Queens Commission (i.e. like Officers in the SCC and ROC). The Corps would not collapse in these circumstances, but I strongly believe that a significant number of serving VR(T) Officers would consider their position - me included - were this to happen. Officers serving with the ATC being commissioned into the RAFVR(T) brings many advantages to both the ATC and RAF, with few disadvantages.
The easiest and most commonly used analogy is that Officers being commissioned into the RAFVR as serving reservists is the “velcro” which connects the civilian ATC (uniformed and non-uniformed) to the military parent service, and is the means by which a military ethos is communicated into the leadership of the Corps. I think this is something that the Corps risks at its peril …it has worked for 70+ years, and to change it for administrative benefit (to avoid the issue that VR(T) Offrs can currently - and always have been able to - make Service Complaints, and redress grievance as far as the AFB and Sovereign) is a mistake. Incidentally, I believe there are other options to avoid the Service Complaints issue rather than sledgehammer option of removing the Queens Commission …but these options are potentially tied up in secondary legislation and QRs.
I think (hope) very few Officers are motivated simply by the uniform and the status, but as I said before, I think any withdrawl of commissioned status would be seen as a tremendously demotivating devaluation by many Officers - myself included. This is a legitimate concern, and although some may cry “walt”, there are very few direct benefits to individuals of being an Officer, but the privilige of commissioned status (i.e. that it is a personal privilege to hold the Queens Commission, for the avoidance of doubt) is one of them. It has certainly provided me with motivation in my darker moments when all else has failed.
[quote]wilf_san wrote:
I believe I can answer the OP too, but I’ll shut-up for now[/quote]
[quote=“asqncdr” post=6116]3. Why are Squadron Commanders Flight Lts? Shuld the be or could they be a lower rank, Say Plt Off/Sgt with staff officers at Fg Off for most, Flt Lt for seniors, Wings Commanded by Squadron Leaders. In the RAF Squadrons are commanded by Wing Commanders so why not reverse the rank inflation?[/quote]Arguably it’s actually quite an odd situation having an OC at a rank as low as Flt Lt.
I stand by to be corrected, but it’s quite rare in the forces for a junior officer to command other officers - but having units as small as ATC squadrons commanded by Sqn Ldrs would seem a little OTT.
It is not the forces though is it- this is where we might be better using original thought.
There appears to be no Legal or military requirement to be a Flt Lt any more, many Wings I find do not promote anyone past Plt Off to Fg Off unless they are in command, we should stop leaning on the parent service Guidelines. There is apparently no reason now that a Squadron Commander holds any particular rank- I have seen units commanded by WO’s with officers as execs, we should better define the requirements in the 21st Century based on the real facts.
The CI who asked this is an aerospace proffesional who I was trying to tap up for a Commission who asked why on earth would he want to, he said he would love to command a unit as a CI and he asked why CIs are treated as second class citizens.
The CI’s are the real backbone of the corps and what makes us what we are- do we do enough for them- a question for another day perhaps.
Why don’t we just put the Officers under the same status of the SNCO’s, they appear happy with it, apparently when asked the WO conference were dead against change. ATC tabs- job jobbed. The cadets will still salute them as will probably the same proportion of serving airmen.
I stand by to be corrected, but it’s quite rare in the forces for a junior officer to command other officers - but having units as small as ATC squadrons commanded by Sqn Ldrs would seem a little OTT.[/quote]
It wasn’t considered to be over-the-top at one time. Back when ADCC Officers were originally commissioned with the limited authority of Air League commissions (prior to the 1941 launch of the ATC, and the transfer of the Officer cadre into the RAFVR) the standard rank for OCs of squadrons appears to have been Cadet Squadron Leader. (However, confusingly, many OCs of ADCC squadrons appeared to actively-retain their retired rank, whilst also being termed ‘Cadet Squadron Leaders’).
Sqn Ldrs as OCs of Air Cadet squadrons…it’s worth noting that many ADCC squadrons were massive- 150 Cadets was not a rarity at some units.
As part of the agreement of the move from the ADCC to the RAFVR, all Officers apparently had to agree to take the substantive rank of Pilot Officer, which was not an entirely-welcome arrangement for many senior retired officers. I’ve not yet found-out what happened to more-senior ADCC Officers (including those that were listed as Cadet Air Commodores), it’s unclear as to whether they were permitted to retain senior acting rank. My suspicion is that initially they wouldn’t have, as it wasn’t until 1943 and onwards when RAFVR(GD) officers started to be promoted into senior ranks (much to the concern of many RAF and AAF officers). And it wasn’t until 1963 that the RAFVR(T) saw an Honorary Air Commodore being directly commissioned into the branch:
(no arguable mentioning by me this time of a certain MRAF ‘VRT’, circa 1968… :pinch: )
wilf_san
ps Are most commissioned OCs of ACF detachments ranked as TA Majors?
[quote]Why don’t we just put the Officers under the same status of the SNCO’s, they appear happy with it, apparently when asked the WO conference were dead against change. ATC tabs- job jobbed. The cadets will still salute them as will probably the same proportion of serving airmen.
I trust you explained to him that CIs are not treated as second class citizens and that we as a military based organistion require those in command to be in uniform.
If he doesnt want to wear the uniform for whatever reason, theres always the scouts.
I think the best combination would be to fully-retain the RAFVR status of commissioned CFAVs, and to move AWOs/ASNCOs into the RAFVR(T) as well, all with TCoS for current members as-is. So the only uniform change would be for AWOs/SNCOs pins.
The current system works, and may only justify slight adjustment (eg the point about the ongoing mis-alignment from the RAF’s current active volunteer reserves in the RAuxAF). I don’t follow the reasoning behind your suggestion, asqncdr…it would be a return to 1940 linkages, without any improvement in organisational efficiency or the Cadet experience.
wilf_san
[edit]@bti- yes, you’re correct re ROC officers: they held warrants, rather than conventional commissions, despite dressing as commissioned offices, doing the full SERE at Cranwell (if regular), and being paid compliments by ORs (irrespective of service of that OR). In that sense, they were similar in tradition to RN WOs outwith the executive branch who, at a point during the early 1970s, all became collectively commissioned and ceased to be ‘‘officers by warrant’’. This may also still apply to Coastguard and Customs officers, plus Police officers above the rank of Inspector (ie also officers by warrant but with powers of Sovereign’s comission. It’s partly a function of which organisation an individual is appointed to, for service (and, the status of that organisation[/edit]
This an interesting point. We hear this touted all the time but is it actually true?
Would the Corps collapse if we lost all the CIs? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
It would certainly suffer! Though probably no more so than if we lost all the SNCOs, or WOs, or Commissioned Officers.
There are many hard working CIs who put a great deal of effort into the Corps. But there are also many hard working uniformed staff who put the same effort in. Likewise there are those both in and out of uniform who put in less effort than some of their collegues.
I don’t personally consider CIs to be any more or less crucial to the Corps than uniformed staff; it’s just a different role.
Which makes me wonder then…why do we constantly hear how especially important CIs are? Is it just because somewhere it’s felt that they need to be told?
If we’re all equal in terms of our volunteering then does this not itself show that at some level CIs are viewed as being lower? “Ah, he’s a CI…better make him feel good by pointing out how important he is”.
When was the last time you heard someone say “Officers are the backbone of the Corps. They make us what we are and we’d be crippled without them”?
As a statement it’s entirely true, and it’s a statement that can be applied equally to all staff. Uniformed or not.
its not unreasonable - uniformed staff get kitted out at public expence, get paid, get trained in a formal ‘RAF-type’ manner, and have a set career path.
CI’s get squat, and get completely blanked by WSO’s/WCO’s as soon as they say ‘no sir, i’m not looking at moving into uniform…’. given the differences, its not that surprising that one group feels valued (if pestered by inumerable emails) and the other feels like a leper.
saying ‘CI’s are great’ is a very effective - and most importantly - free, way of motivating people. if you were to transfer the example to your place of work, with one group of employees getting paid, a work uniform, the key to the office, training cources, and a career path that said ‘do this and in 10 years you’ll be the big boss’, and other group of employees having to work in their own clothes, not getting paid, not getting trained, not even being acknowleged as being a member of the org by being refused a company ID card, and having your career structure as ‘when you’re 65, you still won’t get paid, and you’ll still be the brew-bitch’, then you’d expect to have workplace morale in the toilet.
CI’s are fully aware that if they wanted to get paid, or wear a uniform, they should apply to be SNCO’/VRT - but even the most basic man management says that if you want someone to do something for free, and do it alongside someone who’se doing the same thing and getting paid for it, you need to blow a bit of sunshine up their bum now and again.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=6141]It is not the forces though is it- this is where we might be better using original thought.
There appears to be no Legal or military requirement to be a Flt Lt any more, many Wings I find do not promote anyone past Plt Off to Fg Off unless they are in command, we should stop leaning on the parent service Guidelines. There is apparently no reason now that a Squadron Commander holds any particular rank- I have seen units commanded by WO’s with officers as execs, we should better define the requirements in the 21st Century based on the real facts.[/quote]What advantage would be gained by demoting everyone by one rank though?
As it stands, we have a natural progression for officers - Plt Off for newbies, Fg Off for squadron staff and Flt LT for OCs and less-senior wing staff.
Its renumeration dontcha know… not pay (apparently)…
Not every management decision needs to be made just because of the budget (perhaps someone could tell the government that…?)
I think the officer rank structure is absolutely fine in general.
As for the CI vs ATC vs VRT arguments… I can’t help but think people are looking for conflict where none really exists.
All have specific place within the organisation. CIs primary role is to be specialist instructors. They arent (generally) subject to the same burdens as uniformed staff are (administrative burdens, higher level of responsibility etc). There is of course role creep with some - most engage this creep voluntarily.
Are CIs second class citizens however? No, just because their traditional/set role is different doesnt make them any less a volunteer. And those that want “more” are welcome to go into uniform. Those that don’t, simply don’t have to.
The same role creep applies to NCOs. We are in the position now where (not in this wing but I know its different locally) where NCOs command units - traditionally reserved for officers only. Personally I would like to see NCOs who want to take command take commissions, but I know this is not always possible (established “old” NCOs who cant due to age for example).
Should we do away with the Queens Commission for VRT… I’m firmly in the NO category, for reasons highlighted elsewhere. Should NCOs ATC be brought into the VRT? Absolutely yes!
I take a lot of stick as an officer, from those below and above me for various things. Being proud that I have a nice scroll “signed” by her Majestyship is one of the few real “benefits” we get.
It gives us a lot of abilities and opens a lot of doors for us which IMO a cadet commission wouldn’t. It would also really annoy me personally, probably enough to consider my position as an officer.
It’s not about the uniform, or pretending I’m a regular. But it is about pride, and removing one of the main links to the parent service says to me “we don’t trust you” and “you aren’t good enough”, especially given the recent implementation of OASC - how would that work for a cadet commission?!
There will always be CIs who are happy enough to whinge that they can’t do this or that, and that they don’t feel valued. I’d suggest that instead of constantly looking for praise, if they put as much effort into providing opportunities for the cadets they would get enough thanks to last them a lifetime.
Some people (some serving uniformed staff I know too) are more than happy to cherry pick what they get. They want command, but don’t want a commission. They want pay, but don’t want responsibility. They want a uniform, but don’t want to wear in it accordance with dress regulations, or they want to wear it when they choose. It really winds me up!
how many of your cadets (or their parents) say ‘thank you’ after you’ve taken them away for a day/weekend/week?
its rather difficult to feel valued when the people around you get paid when you don’t, and get invested in when you don’t, and impossible to feel valued when your WSO/WCO comes over to you all bluff and hearty, welcomes you to the ACO and then asks ‘so, are you looking to move into uniform?’, and when you reply, politely, that its not something you’re interested in at the moment, your ‘bluff and hearty’ WSO/WCO moves away from you only marginally slower than if you’d told him that you had slept with his wife and daughters, and that you are a senior member of Dr Mengeles fan club.
its the first thing they ask of the new CI, and if he/she says no, its the only thing they ask of the new CI - that in itself is evidence of the view that CI’s are considered second class citizens.
CI’s are no less accountable in law than SNCO’s, and in practice no less accountable than VR(T) - that does not mean we should not have VR(T) or SNCO’s, merely that as CI’s do not recieve the public investment (uniform, training, public identification as part of the ACO/RAF, filthy lucre and a set career path) that other members of the ACO’s adult staff do, the ACO should not begrudge just being nice to them…
I despise the attitude that some staff can take with others. But it happens across the organisation, not just to CIs. I do not like the pressure that some put on CIs to go into uniform - IMO, we should wait until the CI asks us, not pressure them.
I am intrigued to know what training you can’t access as a CI though? And you do get corporate sweatshirts to wear now, which should help you feel more “uniform” and publicly identified.
And actually I had an email the other day thanking me and my staff for my efforts. I’ve also had other parents say it to me, and from some cadets. A cadet I enrolled last week came and shook my hand and said thankyou (which was a bit of a shock, I admit).
The point is you don’t always need someone to come to your face and say “thank you” to realise you’re valued. You should be able to watch the cadets grow and learn and know that at some point down the line, be it 1 or 10 years, they will remember you as the person that helped them climb that wall, or go canoeing, or get their first V-bull, took them gliding for the first time. You can see it in their faces, and whilst the attitude of some (VRT, NCO, CI, cadet or CivCom member) leave a lot to be desired, the vast majority will be grateful to you, even if they don’t say it in as many words.
