Width of ATC mudguard

Everyone Uniform and Drill
21

But who tells a headmaster, who is not in uniform, he ‘must’ do something?

I’m not suggesting RAF sections should ignore the rules, by the way, but I get fed up with people telling us we must.

The biennial inspection is the means by which the military authorities are assured that CCFs are compliant, and the sign off at the end by the RO is to say that the CCF continues to deserve MOD support. That, and that only, is the means for this to take place, hence HQAC has beefed up the inspection process, and a CCF can be put in Special Measures if it is not complying.

Personally, I’d make attendance at the Heads’ Briefing at Frimley a requirement for heads, with a threat of withdrawal of support if not.

22

[quote=“Chief Tech” post=8452][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’
[/quote]

No. I understand the situation perfectly. The fact that you seem to think it’s acceptable makes me a bit sick to be honest.

If an officer doesn’t have the moral courage to do his job, then he shouldn’t be an officer and if a teacher doesn’t have the moral courage to do his job, then he shouldn’t be a teacher.

The whole rotten business needs tearing down and starting from scratch.

As for: “but how can you prove CACWO is an ACO appointment?”

It’s in the flaming name!

23

This is why I don’t like working with my local CCF…

It’s not so bad when I’ve been asked to help out on a camp…When they’re on a RAF Station, wearing RAF Uniform I expect the same standards from them as I’d expect from my cadets, and I’m given the authority to do it (despite the occasional objection from some of the officers).

But helping out the contingent on their own patch means dealing with long hair, archaic ‘traditions’, and adults in uniform with even less of a clue than some of the muppets in the ATC.

The old boys, private school, attitude and the constant "oh that’s not in the school policy’ makes me want to bash heads together.

So far as I’m concerned, if someone looks like a sack of **** in unfiorm they should be picked up on and it edencouraged to correct it. Not defended because ‘the school policy doesn’t enforce it’. Perhaphs the school policy should be changed?

We’ve also had a few CCF cadets from another school attend our ATC NCO courses and they’ve been very good. Keen to learn and improve themselves.
A colleague of mine helps out with yet another contingent. He found that many of the cadets didn’t want to look like idiots in uniform and when they were actually told they looked a disgrace and were shown how to correct it they were keen to do so.

Whilst I don’t want to tar all CCF with the same brush, it does seem to me like the biggest reason for the poor reputation that some CCF cadets have is due primarily to the fact that their staff can’t be bothered, or are not empowered to do anything about it.

It makes me wonder why the top bods in such schools want to maintain a CCF at all if they’re not prepared to do it properly? I just can’t understand that.

24

[quote] No. I understand the situation perfectly. The fact that you seem to think it’s acceptable makes me a bit sick to be honest.

If an officer doesn’t have the moral courage to do his job, then he shouldn’t be an officer and if a teacher doesn’t have the moral courage to do his job, then he shouldn’t be a teacher.

The whole rotten business needs tearing down and starting from scratch.

As for: “but how can you prove CACWO is an ACO appointment?”

It’s in the flaming name![/quote]

Never said it was acceptable just that we (the ATC) should engage with a positive mindset rather that keeping going on and on about something that won’t change overnight on a unit. It needs work over a long period and positive encouragement, both to the staff and the Cadets. A closed mindset will not change anything. I agree with everything that wdimagineer2b states above. But if we can help both the staff and the cadets develop positively then everybody wins (who knows we might even learn something - the leadership training and NCO development of the CCF is far better than a lot of ATC units, probably due to the lack of Adult NCOs).

[quote] Taken from the Terms of reference for the CACWO from Bader

  1. The post Commandants Air Cadets Warrant Officer (CACWO) is established to provide a personal adviser to the Commandant Air Cadets on matters which concern or interest WO’s (ATC), F/Sgt (ATC), Sgt (ATC) Staff and Cadets. The post is the Air Cadets Senior Warrant Officer appointment: Regions and Wings are to ensure CACWO is able to visit talk with all WO’s, Non Commissioned personnel (Staff) and Cadets.[/quote]

The CACWO is appointed as an advisor to the commandant - hence the name. If he was an ACO appointment with supervisor authority (like an RSM or SWO) wouldn’t his name be more likely to be WO Air Cadets. Note that there is nothing above about him liaising with Test Areas. The structure of the CCF shown in ACP31/5 Chapter 2 shows the CCF part of the ACO equal to HQAC reporting direct to the Air Cadet Council. I have quoted official publications and documents supplied by the ACO. However thing change and these may be out of date - please have a look and see if you can find anything official (even a policy document or an email) and lets judge the issue on evidence not supposition and assumption.

[quote]But helping out the contingent on their own patch means dealing with long hair, archaic ‘traditions’, and adults in uniform with even less of a clue than some of the muppets in the ATC.

The old boys, private school, attitude and the constant "oh that’s not in the school policy’ makes me want to bash heads together.[/quote]

And How many times have you seen an ATC unit (normally from another region) who’ve trotted out the excuse “we don;t do that in our Sqn/Wing/Region” - the excuses are the same but at least in the ATC we have more checks and balances - how many times have you gone to another sqn and seen cadets going round with DPM rank slides, carrying pace sticks etc and you’ve bitten your tongue because you are a guest at their sqn? It unacceptable anywhere but it requires us all to work positively together otherwise we won’t make progress and get past the negatives for either the ATC or the CCF.

25

There’s a difference between being tactful and failing to condemn lack of moral courage.

Chief Tech, it says in your own quote that CACWO is an advisor to the commandant on ‘matters which concern…cadets’. It doesn’t say ‘ATC cadets’ it says ‘cadets’ and so refers to all the cadets that Commandant Air Cadets is responsible for, which includes CCF (RAF) cadets. It also says ‘The post is the Air Cadets senior Warrant Officer appointment’. Again, ‘Air Cadets’ not ‘ATC’.

26

Many! In fact every NCO course I’m on I’m trying to beat the wierd fads out of squadrons.

Ah, well. I’m not exactly known for biting my tongue when I know I’m right :stuck_out_tongue:
Tactful when I need to be, but if something needs to be said - it’ll be said.

27

If I had £1 for every time a document produced by HQAC says ‘Air Cadets’ or ‘ACO’ when it actually means ‘Air Training Corps’, I wouldn’t need to work any more.

I wouldn’t even begin to defend scruffy CCFs, or those who don’t toe the line on the regulatory front. I’d be perfectly happy to put my senior cadets against yours, and indeed this happens on ACLC (where one of mine will be having no difficulty at all holding his own this summer).

However, this doesn’t mean that the ACO chain of command is my chain of command, and this is what you still don’t get, despite Chief Tech’s (and my) best efforts to provide you with chapter and verse. Wg Cdr CCF is NOT my CO. CAC is NOT in my chain of command. CACWO is, as the TORs state, an advisor to the ATC, not the CCF(RAF).

I suggest you spend a little time in a CCF with compulsory service - not time moaning about it, but time trying to understand how such an organisation can benefit EVERY cadet who comes through its doors - before you write it off as a worthless exercise. I would prefer to run a voluntary CCF, but my commanding officer has decreed otherwise and, as he pays my salary, that’s his prerogative.

28

[quote=“tmmorris” post=8488]If I had £1 for every time a document produced by HQAC says ‘Air Cadets’ or ‘ACO’ when it actually means ‘Air Training Corps’, I wouldn’t need to work any more.

I wouldn’t even begin to defend scruffy CCFs, or those who don’t toe the line on the regulatory front. I’d be perfectly happy to put my senior cadets against yours, and indeed this happens on ACLC (where one of mine will be having no difficulty at all holding his own this summer).

However, this doesn’t mean that the ACO chain of command is my chain of command, and this is what you still don’t get, despite Chief Tech’s (and my) best efforts to provide you with chapter and verse. Wg Cdr CCF is NOT my CO. CAC is NOT in my chain of command. CACWO is, as the TORs state, an advisor to the ATC, not the CCF(RAF).

I suggest you spend a little time in a CCF with compulsory service - not time moaning about it, but time trying to understand how such an organisation can benefit EVERY cadet who comes through its doors - before you write it off as a worthless exercise. I would prefer to run a voluntary CCF, but my commanding officer has decreed otherwise and, as he pays my salary, that’s his prerogative.[/quote]

I really don’t understand how I can make this clearer. I have read the documents you keep presenting as evidence to support your position and they don’t.

You can’t just decide that ‘Air Cadets’ means ‘Air Training Corps’ because that’s what you want it to mean in this case.

CAC IS in your chain of command. CACWO is an advisor to CAC on matters that affect ‘Air Cadets’ and that includes CCF (RAF).

The Headmaster is your boss as a teacher and pays you to teach. He is also responsible for the school and its pupils. He can’t be your commanding officer because he’s not an officer and he doesn’t hold a command. Just like the Prime Minister doesn’t ‘command’ the Armed Forces. In fact, that’s probably the best analogy.

29

CCF sections should work like a franchise (not unlike many MacDonalds sites): If you want to run a section you enter into an agreement with the parent service and receive a joining pack of branding instructions etc. You agree to follow a core set of rules but you get to make decisions regarding the day-to-day running of your particular unit within that framework.

If that cannot be made to happen we need to cut CCFs loose and stop pretending we have any links, influence or obligation. Let it be up to the parent services to decide whether to continue to support CCFs.

30

[quote] tango_limaI really don’t understand how I can make this clearer. I have read the documents you keep presenting as evidence to support your position and they don’t.

You can’t just decide that ‘Air Cadets’ means ‘Air Training Corps’ because that’s what you want it to mean in this case.

CAC IS in your chain of command. CACWO is an advisor to CAC on matters that affect ‘Air Cadets’ and that includes CCF (RAF).

The Headmaster is your boss as a teacher and pays you to teach. He is also responsible for the school and its pupils. He can’t be your commanding officer because he’s not an officer and he doesn’t hold a command. Just like the Prime Minister doesn’t ‘command’ the Armed Forces. In fact, that’s probably the best analogy.[/quote]

You haven’t offered contradictory documents or reputed the existing document. You haven’t stated that they are wrong, or out of date or something else contradicts them just that you have a different interpretation of them. So far you have only quoted by submission or the TOR for CACWO - Let deconstruct that.

[quote]Taken from the Terms of reference for the CACWO from Bader

  1. The post Commandants Air Cadets Warrant Officer (CACWO) is established to provide a personal adviser to the Commandant Air Cadets on matters which concern or interest WO’s (ATC), F/Sgt (ATC), Sgt (ATC) Staff and Cadets. [/quote]

No mention of Air Cadets just “cadets” - are you implying that CACWO is also in the chain of command for CCF(Army) and CCF(RN) cadets? No specific reference to either ATC, ACO, or CCF

[quote]The post is the Air Cadets Senior Warrant Officer appointment: [/quote] Doesn’t prove anything either way - no Adult SNCOs in the CCF so this would have to be ATC and by definition would be the Senior WO appointment in the ACO.

[quote]Regions and Wings are to ensure CACWO is able to visit talk with all WO’s, Non Commissioned personnel (Staff) and Cadets.[/quote] - again no specific mention of air cadets. Also no mention of TEST SNCOs.

Now what is the definition of “Commanding Officer”? - I would define it as “The person who has the authority to appoint you to or to remove you from a position in addition to being able to administer disciplinary procedures” - in the case of the CCF this will be the Headteacher. They can veto any actions and a ACP 31/5 states can run the contingent how they want. The diagram in ACP31/5 clearly shows the CCF reporting DIRECT to the Air Cadet Council as well as to JCS.

Now he’s where I speculate and go out on a limb. Last time I checked a Pilot Officer held a higher rank than a WO. I would argue the CACWO, Region WOs and Wing WOs do not form any part of the chain of the command. They are the Subject Matter Experts to their respective commanders and something akin to shop stewards to the rest of the SNCOs.

Imagine the scenario if the CACWO told a Sqn or Wing CO to do something and that CO said no - what could he do? He certainly couldn’t do anything directly without risking compromising himself or opening himself to charges of insubordination or being disrespectful. He would need to get another officer, superior to the first to implement his instruction.

Now I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been caught out acting on others opinions and assumptions which whilst logical and make perfect sense turn out to wrong. In this respect it has made me more cautious and actually examining what the actual documents say and confirming the written policy. Just because something sounds right or should work that way doesnt mean it does. The last two paragraphs are speculation and assumption, thinking though the logical consequences, but the other facts I have tried to reference and evidence with appropriate documents. If you can find the documents that prove your point I will re-evaluate but I need more than an opinion.

Incubus - CCFs are not far of franchises already and a good analogy - however with franchises, only broad policy and procedures are supplied allowing the franchise owner opportunity to adapt to local conditions. I think I’ll nick that example when I try describing the CCF in future :slight_smile:

31

Regarding the CACWO and SNCOs/WOs in general. They have been empowered to raise standards of Dress, Drill and Discipline in the ACO. Just as the Station WO is by the Commanding Officer. In this respect, if the CACWO ordered a Wing CO to sort out his uniform and stop looking like a scruffbag, or risk being ordered to not wear uniform, the Wing CO would have to do this, even if it was the Wing WO telling the Wing CO. The reason for this is something that exists in the military: Borrowed Power. These WOs, when enforcing regulations, are acting as representatives of the CAC and the RAF in general and are therefore, when making these orders, the orders are in effect coming from the CAC and the RAF. Therefore, the ARE being ordered by a similar rank. This is how the WOs can order officers to improve their uniform.

Regarding a WO not outranking a Pilot Officer, that is true. However, a WO has the job of guiding junior officers such as Pilot Officers in their duties and are integral in the development of a Junior Officer.

32

I like the franchise argument, but the reality is actually the reverse.

School cadet contingents PREDATE any attempt to bring them under the MOD wing. The MOD then, partly due to reputational risk, attempted to bring them under their own control, but no-one has yet attempted to wrest command and control of the contingents from the schools.

At some date in the past (some of you are old enough to remember; I’m not) this thing called the ‘ACO’ was brought into being. It was an attempt to bring the CCF(RAF) under the same command structure as the ATC, align the uniforms and syllabuses (though the CCF still wear the RAF cap badge, a relic of the fact that we have been around longer and worn it since before the ATC was founded), and bring common standards to bear.

The problem is, this has not been entirely successful, due to the disparate nature of CCF contingents, and the fact that the schools still exercise operational command and control over their contingents.

I actually would support a change to this, making contingents more answerable to the military authorities. I think some on here think I’m arguing in favour of long hair, untucked shirts, &c. If you think that, you are welcome to visit my contingent - PM me to arrange it - and you will find otherwise. However, at the moment many of you - tango_lima in particular - are trying to argue that this has already been done. It hasn’t; there are a number of problems, one of which is that outlined by Chief Tech: as Contingent Commander, I am the OC of officers in three different uniforms, two lots of which are ‘real officers’ i.e. TA List B or VR(T). CAC can’t sidestep this; if she was my CO, where would that leave the CCF(A) and CCF(RN) elements? If she was CO for OC RAF section, where does that leave my authority as Cont Comd?

We may be heading in the direction which is, de facto, almost true already - that the CCF becomes part of the Army CoC. DYER mandated a ‘single service with primacy’ or something like that, and while that’s not necessarily the Army, it looks likely. In which case, I could find my CO is Comd 145X, ironically, with CAC cut even further out of the picture.

Those dotted lines on org charts are a pain. One of my colleagues, ex-regular JEngO, tells a story of when OC Eng on his station rang him and ordered him to do something; he replied that he would wait for an order from his CO (the Sqn Cdr) and rang off. Next thing, a car squeals to a halt outside the Sqn hangar and out pops an apoplectic OC Eng. Interview (with tea and biscuits) follows, after which the two got on like a house on fire and sank their differences. But OC Eng has the same relationship to the JEngO on a Sqn as CAC has to me… a dotted line on the org chart. He is not the Sqn officers’ CO.