Width of ATC mudguard

Everyone Uniform and Drill
1

Simple question - could some kind soul please measure the width of the standard ‘Air Training Corps’ mudguard (‘shoulder title’ is I think the official word) on their brassard, and let me know?

Why? I want our CCF(RAF) ones to match the style, colour and width. I’m fed up with using green ones designed for the Army section (who don’t wear them anyway) which are too wide and therefore have to go halfway down the brassard, leaving no space below and looking gash. I’ve asked a supplier to knock up some in the same style and for some reason they are finding this tricky.

Thanks

2

77mm wide and about 26.5mm high.

3

Just bear in mind the dress regs are slightly different for the CCF “distinguishing badge”

[i]0405. CCF Distinguishing Badge. The distinguishing badge for the CCF Contingent is to be worn centrally in the highest possible position on the brassard with the top edge of the badge 6mm from the sides of the brassard.

[/i]As the ATC “distinguishing badge” is designed to touch the edge of the brassard, you may want to design a badge to look good not touching the edge.

4

[quote=“the fixer” post=8135]Just bear in mind the dress regs are slightly different for the CCF “distinguishing badge”

[i]0405. CCF Distinguishing Badge. The distinguishing badge for the CCF Contingent is to be worn centrally in the highest possible position on the brassard with the top edge of the badge 6mm from the sides of the brassard.

[/i]As the ATC “distinguishing badge” is designed to touch the edge of the brassard, you may want to design a badge to look good not touching the edge.[/quote][strike]Should work fine - if it’s the same width as the ATC title then it would have to go in the same place, as the width would prevent its being positioned any higher. It would look like an ATC brassard, but without the sqn number.[/strike]

Scrub that, just re-read it!

I’d try and mock something up on photoshop if I were you!

Theoretically it should be 12mm narrower, and then it’d go in the same place.

5

[quote=“tmmorris”]

Why? I want our CCF(RAF) ones to match the style, colour and width. I’m fed up with using green ones designed for the Army section (who don’t wear them anyway) which are too wide and therefore have to go halfway down the brassard, leaving no space below and looking gash. I’ve asked a supplier to knock up some in the same style and for some reason they are finding this tricky[/quote]

Bravo, good show. This would be an excellent area to try and regain standardisation about. Here’s some gen which you may already be fully aware of, but no harm in restating it.

As I understand it, although many CCFs now just wear a single mudguard design across all sections within a given school, each of the service sections should officially follow the design pattern of their parent organisation. Like many traditions, this has slipped over the years, but makes a lot of sense when applied.

So: although RN/RM sections should be red on navy blue, this was also the case for many Army sections, and appears to have become a bit of a default CCF standard design, even for RAF sections. There also appears to have originally been something of an original Army cadet forces tradition for mudguard colour choices that I never fully understood, which originated from regimental or corps badging at a divisional parenting level. This was also evident as wear within the ACF, way before the advent of CrumpledSoldier9til5, when classic No2 dress proto-FAD was still in vogue, and was also aligned to divisional affiliations (just for flavour, I think that Guards/Household div affilliated formations may have been blue letters on red, Light div may have been white on green, infantry/corps may originally been whatever upon whichever, but the point being this was irrespective of ACF or CCF(Army). This level of ‘standardisation’ may have pushed some schools to adopt their own independant colour schemes (appropriately, or otherwise), as the calm logic of the Air Force solution appears to have frequently been over-printed by Army colour schemes in many CCF (RAF) sections.

The proper thread colour for ATC mudguards (by which I mean the reduced size RFC-pattern heel-print worn on brassards) is light-blue. This was also the case for the classic full-size lettered mudguards worn on RAF No1 dress (and on '72 pattern No2 jackets, plus the preceding BD blouses). This explains why all Air Training Corps squadron numbers badges are still BIG (correctly) sized, in comparison with the tiny heel-print formation badges. The use of the (current) official ‘wrongly sized’ heel-print badges by ATC cadets on No1 dress always looks particularly wrong, in my opinion. Resurrecting the proper-sized classic muddie for ATC No1s is probably too late (in view of the almost re-brand within the Org to ‘RAF Air Cadets’), but it would get my vote.

For your excellent enterprise in trying to get RAF-pattern brassard badges resurrected at your RAF section- I’d recommend you try asking the Cadet Kit Shop (nee Cadet Supply Department, as-was) for a quote. Would a heel-print ATC/RFC design work-out better for you than a straight arc? That might keep more space on the brassard- always a useful factor. It’d be nice to think that your lead on this might be taken up in the RAF sections at other schools…

wilf_san

ps there’s an interesting related thought, now: presumably the CACWO would have the right to enforce any set dress standard within the CCF(RAF)? In conjunction with Sqn Ldr CCF? I take it CACWO will be an Org rather than Corps appointment, like CAC herself.

6

Thanks for your support. I’m on the case…

Not in my chain of command… This is where you come up against the problem with CCF(RAF), which is that we in the ACO, but not in the ACO. So, CACWO could attempt to enforce it, and a sensible headteacher would agree, but ultimately the head could refuse, and the only sanction RF&C Div have would be to withdraw MOD support for the Contingent, which wouldn’t be likely.

Unfortunately DYER shied away from really tackling the C2 issues in CCF. Which is a shame, in my view.

Has anyone noticed the example CCF brassard in the latest AP1358C has a nasty rectangular unit badge?

7

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8385]Thanks for your support. I’m on the case…

Not in my chain of command… This is where you come up against the problem with CCF(RAF), which is that we in the ACO, but not in the ACO. So, CACWO could attempt to enforce it, and a sensible headteacher would agree, but ultimately the head could refuse, and the only sanction RF&C Div have would be to withdraw MOD support for the Contingent, which wouldn’t be likely.

Unfortunately DYER shied away from really tackling the C2 issues in CCF. Which is a shame, in my view.

Has anyone noticed the example CCF brassard in the latest AP1358C has a nasty rectangular unit badge?[/quote]

I don’t mean to be rude, but this has come up before…

Whatever the Army might tell you, you ARE part of the ACO CoC and CACWO does have the right to enforce dress standards. The problem is the same as on ‘joint’ establishments: the Army just get all their people into the positions of control by shouting loudest and then continuing to shout over everyone else.

‘Joint’ (or in this case ‘Combined’) is not a synonym for ‘Army’, just tell them to poke it. You said yourself they have no sanctions.

8

But isnt the CACWO as a SNCO appointed to the ATC not the ACO?

The CCF are NOT part of the ATC (hence the RAF Cap badge) just the ACO. The rules & regulations pertaining to them are governed by JSP 313 & 814 and most sections use Westminster rather then Bader SMS. The chain of command makes no mention of CACWO and the terms of reference for the CACWO make zero reference to the CCF.

If the CACWO has no official responsibility, how can we insist that the CCF falls within his remit? Couldn’t the CCF tell him to equally ‘poke it’. ??

9

Indeed. You beat me to it - tango_lima needs to go and read JSPs 814 and 313 (probably on BADER somewhere) - the point is not that CCFs are part of the Army, but that they are not part of the RN, Army OR RAF - or the SCC or ATC - they are part of the school.

In particular I would draw your attention to Annex A to Chapter 1 of JSP313, which is the CoC and clearly shows a representative CCF as a standalone organisation with dotted lines leading to all three sService HQs, and MOD. Dotted lines are for ‘input’ not command; and to Chapter 2 para 2.1:

[quote]2.1. Head’s authority
2.1.1.The CCF organisation is such that no outside authority may interfere with the responsibility of Heads for the staff and pupils in their schools. Heads have the right of access to the JCS on any issues concerning the contingent.[/quote]

It would be an understatement to say that there is a lot of misinformation about this in the ATC.

(Edited to add - as it appears you are a regular, you can get both JSPs on DII, of course.)

10

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8414]Indeed. You beat me to it - tango_lima needs to go and read JSPs 814 and 313 (probably on BADER somewhere) - the point is not that CCFs are part of the Army, but that they are not part of the RN, Army OR RAF - or the SCC or ATC - they are part of the school.

In particular I would draw your attention to Annex A to Chapter 1 of JSP313, which is the CoC and clearly shows a representative CCF as a standalone organisation with dotted lines leading to all three sService HQs, and MOD. Dotted lines are for ‘input’ not command; and to Chapter 2 para 2.1:

[quote]2.1. Head’s authority
2.1.1.The CCF organisation is such that no outside authority may interfere with the responsibility of Heads for the staff and pupils in their schools. Heads have the right of access to the JCS on any issues concerning the contingent.[/quote]

It would be an understatement to say that there is a lot of misinformation about this in the ATC.

(Edited to add - as it appears you are a regular, you can get both JSPs on DII, of course.)[/quote]

You’re misunderstanding me.

An RAF Airman can be posted to a joint service establishment like Leconfield. Also, for example, there are RAF Regt SNCOs at Brecon and Lympstone.

Those individuals are a part of those units in the same way the CCF contingent is a part of their school, but they don’t cease to be part of the RAF, in the same way as CCF (RAF) contingents are a part of the Air Cadet Organisation.

Commandant Air Cadets and Commandant Air Cadets Warrant Officer are responsible for the ACO, not just the ATC. The Headmaster is responsible for his staff and pupils in the sense that he has duty of care and is in a position of trust. That’s got absolutely nothing to do with the ‘military’ dress and discip. side of things.

11

But how do you get round the fact the CACWO is ATC?

Looking thought the terms of reference for the CACWO is appears to be an ATC appointment not an ACO. There is no mention about liaising with the CCF nor with Areas. The CCF may be part of the ACO & the ACO chain of command but it is not the ATC and does not have any adult SNCOs who are not been appointed my RFCA. Going be all the documentation (I only skimmed though) HQAC are only there to provide advise and specific support. Chain of Command for complaints goes through RFCA.

The headmaster of a school can override any activity of the CCF, cancel it request extra insurance or require it to me done in a different matter. He can also decide who takes over the contingent and runs the section. If the headteacher says that the girls don’t have to have their hair in buns then they don’t have to. On school premises its school rules. The Officers may be part of the Cadet forces but they are employed by the school - you’re not going to want to risk your job over hair nets!!!

Applying the ATC model doesn’t work - its a too political beast to do that too especially with those schools where a cadet rings up daddy in parliament or whitehall or where they get one of the Old School Alumni who sits on the defence board to sort things out for them (see L81s, Stamford School & General Mike Jackson).

Unfortunately CACWO would have very little influence (i.e. none) on a CCF that wasnt prepared to listen and work with to him. I think part of the problem with the ATC working with the CCF is that ATC staff are all too ready to try and shove rules down the CCF’s throat when the CCF doesn’t actually have to follow them (also works vice-versa see situation with JSP535).

Accept they have different rules and move on. If they are coming to your event (or they are going to be on station) then the should make sure everything is correct before hand. If you are on their tuff, just let the matter go (but make sure your cadets are the bee-knees!!).

Another of the problems is that ACO regs are often written ONLY for the ATC with the CCF forgotten. If you don’t include their situation when writing the rules, how are you going to engage with them or get them to comply. They can tell you to get stuffed so they will. They’re equivalent of Wing Staff are all regulars/ FTRS who have a more service, less cadet attitude.

One thing I’m not sure if its changes (& AP1358C hasnt made clear) is the CCF Markman badges - use to be you had 2nd Class, 1st Class & Marksman with blue edging for small bore and red edging for full bore. A Test NCO told me once that all the badges for CCF(RAF) are governed in a different JSP and are not managed by the ACO. Not sure if thats still true but I’m pretty sure that a lot of ACO policy for the CCF(RAF) is over rulled by JSPs, RFCA and the cadet Council

12

Chief Tech,

Nail on head. Thank you for the above.

Situation with marksmanship badges is still confusing. As far as I know, we still use the badges you refer to, having been told not to use the ATC ones a few years ago. The ones you refer to match the Army section ones. However the example CCF brassard in 1358C shows the ATC ones, and Inst 18 of ACP22 is now deprecated in favour of ACTOs 42/43. I’ll have to seek further guidance I think,

13

The title is ‘Commandant Air Cadets’ not ‘Commandant Air Training Corps’.

CACWO is an ACO appointment, although, as you point out, by necessity the appointee has to come through the ATC pipeline. The CCF (RAF) are just going to have to grow up and accept that fact.

As for the Headmaster: he obviously has the right to determine the use of school property, time and money and to protect the interests of the school. The JSP is there to prevent a ‘coup d’etat’ by an overzealous contingent commander demanding four parade nights a week and six GPMGs for the contingent. It absolutely does not extend to your example of the Head making up dress regs, he has no right to over rule them in the same way that the ATC squadron commander has authority for his squadron, but can’t go making up his own rules on things like that.

And politics? Maybe the pupils should be reminded who runs the school and the cadets who runs the contingent. Sounds like poor discipline exercised by teachers and officers and if I was paying to send my son or daughter to a school where you examples were the norm I would withdraw them and my money.

Short answer: just because the CCF (RAF) don’t follow the rules, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.

14

So, all you ATC types who are offering me advice here, answer the following question:

Who, in law, is my commanding officer?

Bearing in mind that I am a CCF Contingent Commander, who happens to wear light blue.

Once you’ve given your answers, I will tell you the actual answer (as told to me in my interview with Wg Cdr CCF in 2003, and repeated to my latest junior officer in 2011).

Also, if you want to look at an example of a CCF making up their own dress regs, I refer you to none other than the Duke of York’s Royal Military School, Dover…

(edited: PS: why shouldn’t CACWO, if he is intended to cover the CCF as well, be a CCF SSI who was a WO in regular RAF service previously?)

15

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8444]

Also, if you want to look at an example of a CCF making up their own dress regs, I refer you to none other than the Duke of York’s Royal Military School, Dover…[/quote]

Noted… (I thought QVS was exotic, wearing redcoats and kilts…DoY RMS does look to be an interesting combination of uniforms)


[quote=“tmmorris” post=8444]
(edited: PS: why shouldn’t CACWO, if he is intended to cover the CCF as well, be a CCF SSI who was a WO in regular RAF service previously?)[/quote]
Well, with approval from his/her Commanding Officer, maybe they could apply to do it as a job-share… :wink:

wilf_san

16

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8444]So, all you ATC types who are offering me advice here, answer the following question:

Who, in law, is my commanding officer?

Bearing in mind that I am a CCF Contingent Commander, who happens to wear light blue.
[/quote]

Your headteacher.

Next

17

Not sure SSIs have a Commanding Officer, actually, given they are civilians in uniform…

:stuck_out_tongue:

18

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8444]So, all you ATC types who are offering me advice here, answer the following question:

Who, in law, is my commanding officer?

Bearing in mind that I am a CCF Contingent Commander, who happens to wear light blue.

Once you’ve given your answers, I will tell you the actual answer (as told to me in my interview with Wg Cdr CCF in 2003, and repeated to my latest junior officer in 2011).

Also, if you want to look at an example of a CCF making up their own dress regs, I refer you to none other than the Duke of York’s Royal Military School, Dover…

(edited: PS: why shouldn’t CACWO, if he is intended to cover the CCF as well, be a CCF SSI who was a WO in regular RAF service previously?)[/quote]

19

[quote=“tango_lima” post=8436]

And politics? Maybe the pupils should be reminded who runs the school and the cadets who runs the contingent. Sounds like poor discipline exercised by teachers and officers and if I was paying to send my son or daughter to a school where you examples were the norm I would withdraw them and my money.[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the situation a lot of CCF officers are in. The example I gave regarding hair in buns came about because an officer told two girls to do so. However the parents objected. Hence Headmaster rollocking said officer for trying to enforce discipline and official line being that Schools uniform policy was sufficient and nothing more stringent should be enforced.

I have also heard where parents have complained that there daughter wasn’t made contingent RSM (the senior most cadet & senior to all cadet heads of sections). The result was the a special post of stores RSM was created just so the girl could put in on her CV.

When you are dealing with governors, friend committees, old boys associations, local government and business it can be a pretty machiavellian business. Some headteachers like the idea of a CCF but don’t really understand it and don’t like it working independently. Think along the lines of the British Army during the Regency period and you start to get a rough idea of what it can be like. The response to threatening to withdraw the child and money is only really noticed if there isnt someone with more money or influence else you would be probably just told ‘go on then’

And just because the rules apply to the ATC does not mean they are also for the the CCF (CWC regs for example). Don’t assume that because they are doing something different they are doing it wrong. And even if it is, don’t assume its the staff and cadets being lazy or crap (although this always remains a possibility) when it could be some background school politics rule. We complain on this forum about how often we get contradictory instructions from HQAC - pity the poor CCF who get it in stereo from both the ACO and RFCA.

Also ACP 31-5 The CCF has some interesting comments

In addition the structure of the CCF in Chapter two implies that HQAC supplies training and administrative support only with policy being dictated by the Joint Cadet Secretariat.

Regarding the CACWO issue, can you point to where it states that this an ACO appointment? The terms of references for CACWO make no references to the CCF (available on Bader - TORs - WO.doc) and I can find no documentation regarding him having responsibility. Unless it can be proved and evidenced unfortunately its may have to be the ATC who have to ‘grow up’ and accept that different Air Cadets have different regs. Just making the assumption via title doesn’t prove anything.

Tango_Lima - can you find anything that contradicts this?

If you get the opportunity, see if you can help out at a CCF unit - and you’ll see that they have a very different mindset (I would swap a few of their cadet NCOs for some of my adults NCOs if I could but thats a different matter!!). You would learn a lot from them and they would also learn a lot from you - just be open minded and ride the wave of differences.

tmmorris

I imagine what has happen is that the person who has done the brassard example did it for both and has assumed that the marksmanship badges are the same as the ATC not realizing all the technical issues that go with the CCF (which is the standard for the ATC). I would expect the argument to ping-pong again for a while with it going back to the current state. Personally I would ditch the ATC markman badges in favour of the CCF - the latter is much clearer and makes it clear between full bore and small bore.

20

As a CCF(RAF) Section Commander, I find this very interesting. If I can offer two points/questions:

  1. I contacted Wg Cdr CCF last year about the shooting badges - as of Jan 2013 I was told to stick with the CCF(RAF) badges while a final decision was being made. Still no word on a final decision, but I guess that means we are to ignore AP1358C on this for now.

  2. Now that ACP22 has been ditched in favour of the CCF(RAF) annex to JSP313, does this change things? The HQAC rules are now published at JSP level as opposed to ACP level, so surely CCF(RAF) sections must conform to everything therein?