only yesterday after L98A2 training 3 of the 7 Cadets came up to me and the other instructor thanking us for offering the training.
as for seeing the Cadets grow, i see more “satisfaction” in seeing a Cadet with a beeming smile after their frist flight, or their first 5 rounds on the target, have got home safe after a AT walk, or were able to talk to a neightbouring Sqn on the radio, or hear their time from annual camp spoken with such enthusiasm and excitement than i do by receiving a “pay” slip once a month
[quote=“talon” post=6162][quote=“wilf_san” post=6142]
ps Are most commissioned OCs of ACF detachments ranked as TA Majors?
[/quote]
No. A detachment, if commanded by an officer, is usually commanded by a 2Lt or Lt, however it can be captain. A major would command the company.[/quote]
the reason being is that they are classed as a Platoon Sized Sub Unit which in the army is commanded by any of the following Capt/Lt/2Lt/WO2/CSgt.
Interesting span of views- ACF detachments are largely commanded by SNCO instructors due to a shortage of Junior officers. There is no tie to Regular manning by the ACF. just and aspiration.
No one is addressing the elephant in the room. Why do OC of ATC Squadrons need to be Acting Flt Lts? Why do Wing Commanders have to command ATC wings? So far no one has come close to answering this apart from the historical angle. There is no argument to support the status quo based on Regular command, Disciplinary powers or any other restrictions placed on regular and reserve forces.
So what rank should a Squadron commander be in this day and age? Does he need a Uniform or a commission to lead a Youth group? Could there not be Uniformed people in a position to assist wit influence etc where needed?
The issue about Rank inflation is far more important than some people think- the regulars I have spoken to about this on another site have a major problem with it- If peoples visible rank was closer to their actual skills and position within the RAF family, after all we are all Just substantive Fg Off or P/O’s are we not. There is little excuse for wearing higher acting ranks in most cases apart from personal status.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=6422]I have a theory- but need to know why OC Squadrons need to be either;
FLT LT
An officer
A Uniformed member of staff.
I would love to know the answers above to fully form it- and no one appears to know the answer to these quite important and incisive questions?[/quote]
Ask HQAC?
[quote=“asqncdr” post=6422]I have a theory- but need to know why OC Squadrons need to be either;
FLT LT
An officer
A Uniformed member of staff.
I would love to know the answers above to fully form it- and no one appears to know the answer to these quite important and incisive questions?
I lean towards minimising rank and putting everyone in Uniform as VRT- and enhancing the rewards for CI’s.[/quote]
Why wouldn’t it be a uniformed member of staff? We’re a uniformed organisation.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=6422]I have a theory- but need to know why OC Squadrons need to be either;
FLT LT
An officer
A Uniformed member of staff.
I would love to know the answers above to fully form it- and no one appears to know the answer to these quite important and incisive questions?
I lean towards minimising rank and putting everyone in Uniform as VRT- and enhancing the rewards for CI’s.[/quote]
Isn’t the answer just: ‘because’?
Officers command, it’s just the British way of doing things. You might as well ask why we have ranks at all, or at least the distinctions of commissioned and non-commissioned. Why can’t everyone just be ‘graded’ like in the Civil Service?
As to why they have to be specifically Flight Lieutenants, why does the local unit have to be a Squadron? Why not detatchments, or flights, or contingents, or units, or…
How many staff does it take to give you an answer? The CAC has a FB page - ask her directly!
To echo MattB, if we’re a uniformed youth organization that are sponsored by the RAF, then it follows logically that we wear a uniform.
Like it or not, officers are currently commissioned into the RAFVR(T) based upon a historical decision. Whatever the debate surrounding the present form of commissioning, officers - just like their regular and reserve counterparts - follow the same rank structure up to and including Flt Lt ie: (fairly) automatic promotion to that level so long as boxes are ticked. It’s not about why we ‘need to be’ its about the way it is at the moment.
Apparently, Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr are on merit (or so others would have us believe).
I’ve heard a lot of reasons as to why our only substantive rank is Fg Off. TBPH, I don’t know the real reasons but I personally would suggest that it may be because candidates can be commissioned without the standard 5 ‘O’ Levels and 2 ‘A’ Levels required for RAF\RAuxAF; together with the perceived inability of volunteers to attend extended training programmes and lack of staffing levels at HQAC to deliver the levels of training required.
One may argue that we don’t need the same training as say, a RAuxAF officer but to my mind we do need equivalency training relevant to our role and if ever the SNCO cadre were brought into the VRT, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to train all officers in leadership, man-management and powers of punishment etc (on a level more suited to a volunteer organization). I would also like to see commissioning candidates having to possess GCSE’s and at least one ‘A’ Level.
Maybe then we could create a more professional cadre of volunteers which may justify our existence in the eyes of others and for which we may hold substantive ranks appropriate to the role we fulfil.
I don’t see how much the organization or the MOD would gain from creating a ‘cadet commission’ except to limit the powers that currently commissioned officers have ie: escalation of issues to the AFB and petitioning the Sovereign. If thats all they want to stop, then they’re clutching at straws.
I might have been going a little off track in relation to your original question but I can’t help but feel that you’re trying to build\support a case for VRT officers to be stripped of their commissioned status and given a replacement that is neither needed or wanted.
I might have been going a little off track in relation to your original question but I can’t help but feel that you’re trying to build\support a case for VRT officers to be stripped of their commissioned status and given a replacement that is neither needed or wanted.[/quote]
Read the previous post- I am firmly in the all VRT camp- makes it one system at various levels for all. Just can’t find any modern day justification for the Rank that an OC unit holds or needs to hold. Does being a Flt Lt make anyone a better OC?
I do think that the VRT needs uncoupling from any Regular and reserve relationship as, as it has been stated on here before, not the same as serving in the Regulars or Reserves as the Youth work element is highly specialised I would argue that more distance is made between the two regarding how things are done or how people are rewarded. But there is some evidence that pulling the VRT closer to the parent service with regard to the New selection process has been of positive benefit. Perhaps balance with lower rank ceilings overall and a fully functioning CPD system to enable people to do the job they are actually required to do- maybe ditching some of the parenting foibles like inventories say and move with the times.
I don’t support this Cadet Commission idea- on the discipline side the volunteer cadre are commanded bu volunteers so why not have a proper and robust way of using appropriate discipline which can be administered by the Volunteer Squadron and Wing Commanders. I feel removing the permanent cadre from this would be a good thing, as long as the people in command understood what they were doing, which would require training… so perhaps some modification of the Conditions is needed. It would not remove for example the risk of Military punishment, just lower it somewhat and realise that for someone to have done something that wrong where a Court Martial might be required is probably going to be going to normal court.
I think the educational qualifications is an interesting point and also wonder how anyone is able to navigate this organisation given the complete lack of CPD on offer. But it is not a career is it, it’s a hobby. So any process has to reflect this volunteer element when setting entry requirements like smarts or Fitness.
OK, make all Sqn Cdr’s Fg Offs which is more aligned to the size of a Flt (an average Sqn is 30 cadets which makes it roughly comparable to a Flight in RAF terms). All Flt Lt’s to be on Wg Staff together with SWSO’s in the rank of Sqn Ldr. However, that still creates an issue if a Fg Off has commanded a Sqn(s) after 9 years when automatic, time-served promotion to Flt Lt kicks in as per the current regs. What do we do then?
‘Uncoupling’ means a move away from the issue under discussion - the Queens commission. I do agree, though, about the youth work being a more specialised element of what we do.
I agree on the CPD issue but it would appear that the current workload at ATF would preclude that at Corps level unless something were delegated down to Wg Training Teams.
I’m glad to hear that you’re pro-VR(T) and your comments above have reflected more or less what I’ve said about adapting current disciplinary measures to a level relevant to us.
With the amount of hours we all put in, the administration burden which we’ve been promised for years will reduce but never has and the vacuous schiesse we have to put up with, I’m not so sure it IS a hobby any more. It’s a part-time job with full-time hours. Given the existing minefield with regard to child protection issues and the recent investigation into Savile et al, one might think that HQAC would INCREASE the training requirement and perhaps make it more akin in terms of duration, method and style, to ROIT but with a relevant slant towards youth work.
Get rid of what doesn’t need doing in terms of each Wg putting its own spin on administration processes (hence, reducing the admin burden) and increase training time (a necessary process) as to increase professionalism and ability which then stands the individual in good stead both within the Corps and their civilian employment.
Part of the uncoupling I am talking about covers forgetting parity in ranks with the parent service, once this is done it leads to the question exactly what do ATC units need as a commander?
I would argue that they do not need someone appointed just because in the parent service that number of bods would get that level of people, which is normally set for report writing.
If you do this you also remove any “time” promotion as that has a point in the parent service, leading to pension rights etc but not for usm nor do accumulate the same level of experience to warrant it.
[ would also like to see commissioning candidates having to possess GCSE’s and at least one ‘A’ Level].
Why? I’m the first and to date ONLY candidate in our wing to pass OASC, I did awful in school. What does an A level tell you about the leadership qualities of a candidate?
I personally like the system as it is. I’m proud to say I passed OASC and what it represents, I’m also grounded enough to realise that it’s not on a par with a regular commission. Why change it?
[quote]cilewis wrote:
I’m proud to say I passed OASC and what it represents[/quote]
Well done - congratulations (now the hard work begins!)
Careful here - the commission you will be appointed to is the Queens Commission, and gives you exactly the same legal powers of command as a regular officer. To say that its “not on a par” is both inaccurate and self-depricating …and in my experience this attitude/mindset can lead to VR(T) officers who exercise their authority insecurely, which is no good for the cadre, the Corps, or the individual.
The difference is simply that you are being commissioned to do a different job to a regular officer. It is very difficult to compare the two like for like and there is no need to.
Be secure in the fact that you will be an officer in the RAFVR(T), doing the job that RAFVR(T) officers are commissioned to do. Never live in the shadow of comparing service as a regular officer to service as a VR(T) officer - the two things are incomparable …and have the confidence to know that your decisions are supported by the authority of the Queens Commission.
Don’t be “ashamed” of it - be proud of it - and have confidence (without arrogance). It will make you a better officer …trust me.
The commission itself may be every bit as valid but it is certainly not “on par” with a regular one.
A regular RAF commission is hard-won and properly earned, as it should be. The officers graduating from OIT at Cranwell have worked long and hard and have undergone intense scrutiny and the system has produced a Leader of Men worthy of serving in the regular armed forces.
In comparison, the VR(T) commission has also been earned but the path to it is significantly less arduous and rightly so: the end role is a very different one.
So, the products of these 2 commissioning paths are very different, notwithstanding any personal abilities that some individuals may or may not have, and to claim that an RAF officer and an RAFVR(T) officer are equivalent would be wrong. Rank and powers may match but there is more to being an officer than rank and powers; there is training, understanding, experience earned at Cranwell and at subsequent postings and there is the more detailed vetting that has selected the candidates in the first place. In contrast, a VR(T) officer will have a greater understanding of the things which are specifically applicable to this organisation and their experiences and knowledge will be different.
All this is generally irrelevant as the world of a VR(T) officer will only occasionally cross with that of a regular one in any way other than friendly/social and most interactions will rely more on personality than on the technicalities of rank. It is very important that ACO personnel retain a good bucketful of humility and remember that we are well down the food chain and are asking favours from our regular RAF brethren who may have conflicting priorities. Bigging up the “rights” of a VR(T) officer can serve to increase arrogance and may actually harm these interactions.
Be confident in the rank and remember that we are specialists in what we do and don’t get put off by how big a barcode others may have as that may turn out not to be particularly relevant to the task in hand. I don’t hold a commission but I have never found that to be a disadvantage when dealing with regulars and there is no reason why that should not be the same for the VR(T). I would also not baulk should I feel it necessary to tell a higher ranking regular if they were out of line on something that I, as a CFAV, new to be wrong but then I can’t get nailed to the cross under QRs for doing so
[quote]incubus wrote:
The commission itself may be every bit as valid but it is certainly not “on par” with a regular one[/quote]
I think the term “on a par” is a loaded one. It suggests that a VR(T) officer is inferior to a regular officer, and that their commission is inferior. Neither of these are the case.
The commission itself is simply the means by which ‘an officer’ is given their authority to command, and in the case of the Queens Commission, this is the authority of the Sovereign. As an RAFVR officer, a VR(T) officer is always junior to a regular officer (as is a RAuxAF officer) - and as we all know only ever has the substantive rank of Fg Off - but this is a matter precedence, not a matter of superiority/inferiority.
Never in doubt - as you say, same commission, but 2 different jobs and for 2 different purposes.
Again, never in doubt, however there is a world of difference between “not bigging up” and walking in the shadow of an inferiority complex. VR(T) officers are not “second class citizens”, and should have the confidence to carry out their role with the authority they have been given, securely. This is a world away from “bigging up”, which - agreed - is not only counterproductive but brings the cadre into disrepute.
Interesting debate. One theme that keeps popping up is ‘a commission lets us do more than a cadet appointment would’. May I ask what exactly? I hear that a lot, but I can walk onto RAF stations with no problem, I have a MOD90, I stay in officers’ messes, I have in the past drawn and escorted weapons from RAF armouries, I can command a unit, I can carry a sword, I am saluted upon entry to atc squadrons and acf units. I have yet to encounter anything a commissioned vrt officer can do that my MSSC appointment does not allow me to do. I have found that being an officer rather than SNCO or CI opens doors, not the commission or lack thereof.
