Not any more…
Only out of courtesy 
An interesting thread!
Surely time promotion is a good thing? In regular service, purely by seeing someone is a Plt Off or Fg Off you know they are relatively inexperienced as a commissioned officer (and, in the regular service, previous non-commissioned service is recognised by graduation from IOT as Fg Off or Flt Lt, so there is a balance). Once you get to the thousands of Flt Lts, then you know there is a good grounding of experience!
Surely the same applies within the ACO? I personally think that the rank of a Sqn OC is irrelevant, be it a Plt Off, Fg Off or Flt Lt. The rank should purely indicate the level of experience at a junior level up to the attainment of Flt Lt.
It seems to me that the OP is intending to “Scout-up” the ACO…
With a limited officer rank-structure in the VR(T), it just makes [some kind of] sense (as pointed out previously) that:
Plt Off - New
Fg Off - Sqn Staff
Flt Lt - Sqn Staff/OC
Sqn Ldr - WSO/ ‘A’ Sqn OC
Wg Cdr - Wg CO
Why demote everyone for no reason?
NCOs commanding a Sqn should be done as a stop-gap; temporary measure.
If CIs want to command a sqn, then they can go into uniform…or go to the air scouts… CIs are fully aware of their [crucial] role when then joined (hopefully).
Basing the organisation somewhat on the parent service gives the ATC some direction, guidance; a parent if you will (even though this parent seems to be anorexic and getting skinnier every day). It is [now] called the RAF air cadets for a reason…
[quote=“bti” post=6583The 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.
Cheers
BTI[/quote]
How very true! The problem I see locally is too many young newly appointed people who do not understand this, who talk and act as if they are actually “Front-line serving personnel”
We are not. we are a youth organisation - don’t forget that.
OFF TOPIC:
Arrrrrrgh! :mad: No it is not! Just because ‘Air Cadets’ appears under ‘Royal Air Force’ on the current logo, it does not make that the name of the organisation! The sooner people get that stupid idea out of their heads the better.
Actually, maybe this is on topic, since I think the ATC could do with making itself more distinct from the RAF, not less. Bring back some of the insignia from the ADCC days, get rid of RAF cap badges on SNCOs and be proud of being the world’s premier paramilitary air minded youth organisation.
The RAF’s light blue borg will try to crush the life and esprit de corps out of everything they can possibly get their hands on if you let them.
‘Paramilitary’ - in my opinion - is not a good word to use. It still has connotations from the days of the IRA.
What would be the benefit of that?
We’re parented/sponsored by the RAF…why would we want to distance ourselves?
If we were to do that and go ‘full civie’ we’d be little different to the air scouts.
It’s accurate. Cadets and staff are, by definition, paramilitary.
I did hesitate over the word though, for the reason you give. It’s definition has been twisted (in the UK and Ireland at least) by the fact that the BBC’s editorial guidelines meant they couldn’t use the word ‘terrorist’.
Let’s claim our word back, Gunner.
[quote]What would be the benefit of that?
We’re parented/sponsored by the RAF…why would we want to distance ourselves?
If we were to do that and go ‘full civie’ we’d be little different to the air scouts. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be ‘going full civvi’. Just recognising that the ATC has its own history and traditions that it should be proud of. I think it’s sad to see people within the ATC applauding the loss of identity that the RAF imposes on everything it can.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I would cause so much offence… :dry:
While we’re distancing ourselves, lets ditch our current garb and wear bright yellow trousers with cowboy hats! And we can fly kites instead! YAY!
Disassociation is unhelpful and counter-intuitive.
[quote=“landingsquare” post=6785]Disassociation is unhelpful and counter-intuitive.[/quote]While maintaining a healthy distance is wise. The organisations have very different goals, different requirements and different constraints and trying to jam everything into an RAF-shaped hole can be unhelpful or downright restrictive.
Being at the bottom of the RAF’s pecking order limits their usefulness to us and in many areas we could operate more effectively if we weren’t reliant upon (or constrained by) the military.
[quote=“incubus” post=6787]
Being at the bottom of the RAF’s pecking order limits their usefulness to us and in many areas we could operate more effectively if we weren’t reliant upon (or constrained by) the military.[/quote]
But then you have to ask the question where would the infrastructure (both in a logistical sense, management, and maybe most importantly, the estate) come from to support the organisation?
Camps: Where?
Uniforms: Who would pay for and supply them?
Flying: How would it be provided and regulated?
Pay: Who would renumerate the staff?
Shooting: Ranges?
Just a few of many questions should the organisation detach itself from the RAF/MoD.
I wonder if the RAF’s current predilection for corporate branding is to broaden their portfolio in a time when it as a force is contracting? RAFA have recently been subject to this generic corporate branding.
However RAFA as far as I can tell are not subject to the same control as we are. I think that we are big enough to at times act with more autonomy and in many ways act like a charity with a business arm (run by a proper businessmen NOT RAF types) in terms of getting and managing corporate sponsorship for things such as IT and transport for a start.
The RAF still do the core things as mentioned by Chaz, but outside of that we lose the shackles as this is what holds people back and use it as an excuse for not doing things. But this requires our SLT all being institutionalised military types, to let go of things. Unfortunately I can’t see the sunset crew on nice little earners being up for it. Given that we are work in the big world outside of the military I feel sure we all know the way to act. The RAF go an about the ACO and what it provides, yet they aren’t willing to allow us to fully exploit what we can do, by constantly restricting us like an overbearing parent.
When it comes to email less than 0.5% of what I do is through my OC account as it too restrictive. We suggested that Wing HQ staff use personal email accounts with much more realistic attachment allowance, it was funny to watch the ExO’s face. But as a man who’d been in the RAF for years and fully subservantily numbed by the experience to the real world of the volunteer staff, it was like we had suggested fronting a coup.
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]But then you have to ask the question where would the infrastructure (both in a logistical sense, management, and maybe most importantly, the estate) come from to support the organisation? [/quote]Complete separation would never work for us: it could be done but we would no longer be the ATC/ACO. Still, there are ways we can loosen the administrativa and management reins while retaining a level of connectivity
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]Camps: Where?[/quote]Camp places would still be provided by the RAF as best they can.
RAF can continue to supply on scale as per the moment but this is one area where we can make significant improvements by moving away from the RAF:
With the drawdown of RAF stations it is becoming harder for some of us to get hold of uniform. The ACO would benefit in many ways from having its own uniform supply chain, stocked with the scaled uniform in bulk from the RAF supply chain (or even by transfer of budget and creation of our own contracts). Each wing could (in theory) hold an advanced stock of uniform items for distribution to its squadrons.
This would be augmented by “non-scaled” stock being purchased centrally and being made available for sale to cadets and staff as required: essentially our own, internal “cadet direct” which sells uniform kit (as issued and as permitted as optional items) as well as corporate branded items, fun bits and pieces.
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]Flying: How would it be provided and regulated?[/quote]As before, but it seems that the level of RAF administrative control over ACO flying has already been questioned.
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]Pay: Who would renumerate the staff?[/quote]As before - we are pretty separate from the RAF in this respect already which was of great benefit when JPA was new and a complete shambles. That position may need to be revisited.
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]Shooting: Ranges?[/quote]As before
[quote=“chaz” post=6790]Just a few of many questions should the organisation detach itself from the RAF/MoD.[/quote]Indeed, but the wrong questions.
Using whitefleet vehicles puts a requirement on CFAVs to get an MT600 from their parent station when a civilian hired vehicle has no such requirement. The whole paperwork burden associated with whitefleet vehicles is unnecessarily tedious and limits us.
I would love to see if there was a way to civilianise small bore shooting in the ACO and hopefully take away a huge amount of admin from grass-roots shooting. This isn’t going to be possible for Section 5 firearms.
Given time I could think of more examples of how the RAF/MOD interferes with what we do in a way that is frankly unnecessary.
Saying: “Wah! Wah! Wah! We couldn’t do anything if we weren’t totally RAFised!” is not an argument. The ADCC had camps, uniforms, flying and shooting and the SCC does today.
Having said that, I wasn’t even suggesting a real change in the status quo. I just meant that the ATC should stop trying so hard to look like RAF units that happen to be made up of teenagers and be proud of being the ATC.
Being different and distinct is a good thing, even if the RAF disagrees.
Absobloodylutely!
One of my staff recently spent a day redoing his 600. It only took a couple of hours but it was a day off work with all the travelling, for the off chance of driving a vehicle at some point in the next 12 months. I had a 600 years ago and then MT at the camps got snotty about renewals, so I didn’t bother. Since then I’ve driven cars, minibuses, landies at camp on a temporary 600 (after signing MT orders), as you need the drivers.
IF we had contracted rates with a national hire firm, who deliver to a specified location, it would be much less hassle.
We’ve had at contact at work with Hertz for the last 9 years and it’s really easy, via a dedicated portal, to get vehicles for business trips (if you don’t want to use your own), with vehicles delivered to work or your home, with pick up the same. Far easier than the paperchase (without the 600 palava) to get a vehicle out of the MoD, with the added nuisance factor of a 1½ hour’s drive (for us) to and from the military establishment before and after.
Now if HQAC sorted this out it, with contract rates, would be a real filip to sqns without an SOV.
Or just use MOD fleet vehicles which are for our purposes “free”.
Is a couple of hours for sorting out an FMT600 that onerous a task?!
The FMT600 system is - in theory - very simple and easy.
It’s station MT sections that make it difficult.
Having got my FMT600, I should - assuming there’s no change to my licence - be able to drive any vehicle from the appropriate category from any military establishment in the land without any fuss at all.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=6819]Or just use MOD fleet vehicles which are for our purposes “free”.
Is a couple of hours for sorting out an FMT600 that onerous a task?![/quote]
If we call off whitefleet on the contract somebody pays a hire fee, just as they would with a separate contract. The only difference is that the MOD contract uses the MT600 to self-indemnify whereas a civvy contract will have an insurance charge or have the hirer use their own.
If a squadron is close enough to an RAF station I suppose they may get use of vehicles already lying around so there would be no additional cost to anybody.
As for getting a 600, we are luck in that we can re-sign MT orders at our wing HQ - or could do anyway; not sure if that is still in place.
However, to get a new 600 or get a change to an existing one a member of staff from our wing needs a day off work to travel to Lossie on a Monday (when they do tests) to authorise them to drive something the DVLA already allows them to. For instance I have been driving with trailers for years but to add that to my 600 is a chore.
On the face of it and in theory, yes, getting a 600 is not overly onerous, until you’ve got to take a day off work and travel, in our case, 120 miles return to the nearest station to do something, that as Incubus says the DVLA says I can without any additional paperwork. All I should need to do is submit a copy of my licence and that’s it. But that is far too simple.
The other problem we as a squadron face is the 60 miles return to get a vehicle, as it’s the nearest place to draw, as far as I’m aware.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=6823]The other problem we as a squadron face is the 60 miles return to get a vehicle, as it’s the nearest place to draw, as far as I’m aware.[/quote]We have it easier there to be fair. We call off on the contract and the minibus I’m using this weekend for the Garelochhead Marches will be delivered to my door by the hire company.