Air Training Corps

[RayDarr]

I am not looking at the job the VR(T) do, I am suggesting that the whole VR(T) be disbanded. That includes AEF, VGS and any other set of initials you care to bring up. I am sure retired Air Chief Marshal Bloggs, who is now FgOff acting Flt Lt Bloggs VR(T) won't care a damn that he is no longer commissioned in the VR(T). It won't affect his pension, nor will it prevent him flying his AEF aircraft. He might now be "Third Officer Bloggs of the ATC or some other name, and he will still wear his RAF uniform with a different set of rank braid, and a new cap badge. We will even let the cadets and his ATC juniors call him sir ( I would also call him sir, but because he is a retired ACM, not an air cadet AEF jock). So what's the problem??

By the way. I know of several Verrry senior ex RAF officers who fly/flew air cadets in various AEF's. Fun to see them at ATC Guest Nights in a FgOff No 5, with God knows what stars and gongs all over their chest.

[mgdaviso]

Originally Posted by RayDarr

I strongly believe that saying we can't get volunteers of the right calibre, or "The training is not good enough" is not an excuse (paraphrased from previous threads). If they are not good enough, don't take them, and if the training is poor improve it. Getting in the wrong people trained to the wrong standard is bad for the kids.

I agree entirely, and if the above is fixed (ie: don't take the crud, and improve the training), you won't have any wasters or hangers-on.

This IMO, is no reason to disband the RAF VR(T). I'm proud to hang a piece of paper in my Sqn Office, proud to put on the blue suit, and stand my round at the bar when visiting a Mess. I'm also proud to be associated with the finest Air Force in the World, and the finest youth organisation in the World.

Lets just leave it as it is, and fix the recruitment and training problem.

[Postman Plod]

I'd suggest:

Get rid of the rank structure = scouts = lack of credibility
Get rid of the uniform = youth club = lack of respect and credibility

in both cases, you'd lose respect and credibility from cadets, staff, and the parent organisation. ACF and SCC have maintained a adult military rank structure without any great problems - I dont think this really is a problem as such.

Additionally, you're going to struggle to have anything differentiating you from other youth groups, and people just wont be inetested if you aren't credible - maybe for the wrong reasons, but it would happen. Its also not going to solve the hangars on or wasters - you get those in all organisations. It may solve the "Walt" problem...?

Maybe we just need to be told we are not part of the RAF, but ARE part of the ATC? I'm with mgdaviso here though, we need to sort recruitment and training (and maintaining standards) rather than change the structure as a whole!

[RayDarr]

Postman Plod,
We are agreed that the uniform and rank structure should stay. My view is that the rank structure should be different, along with the cap badge, but all the rest should be much as is the case now. I have still not heard a case for the commission being an essential requirement to do the job. There is no part of the ATC that will fall by the watyside if the VR(T) was to go and be replaced with uniformed adult leaders along the lines of the pre war ADCC. Still call them officers if you like. Let them and the cadets salute each other if you like. I would even salute their seniors (but out of common courtesy and not because I had to)
This is the whole point. As a cadet organisation, why should their officers have an implied power over our airmen which is displayed by the fact that VR(T) officers wear the same uniform and rank as the "real" RAF. It is a little more than saluting and calling people "Sir"

[mgdaviso]

Originally Posted by RayDarr

As a cadet organisation, why should their officers have an implied power over our airmen which is displayed by the fact that VR(T) officers wear the same uniform and rank as the "real" RAF. It is a little more than saluting and calling people "Sir"

So when we're on summer camp and the drunken airmen leave the pub and start harrassing our camp and cadets, we can tell them to **** orf or I'll have you arrested.

[RayDarr]

mgdaviso,
Yep, that's exactly what you do. Don't need a commission for that. Your CI's can do that just as easy as you can. A quick call to the RAF Police from any member of adult staff will get the drunk locked up Try harder.

[mgdaviso]

What RAF police? At a certain Yorkshire Station two years ago, there was one snowdrop for the entire camp overnight, and he didn't even have a dog to tell him what to do - everyone else was in the sandpit. But that's probably for a different thread.

I'm sorry - I'm sticking to my mantra, because it's what I believe in.

Fix the recruitment and training.

[RayDarr]

mgdaviso,
OK, no plod, I can see that is quite likely, but there is a duty Sgt, and Orderly Officer, and a bunch of guys in the guard room. Same thing applies. You don't need a commission to get a bunch of drunks to go away, just common sense. I rather expect that if your VR(T) bloke had relied on his commission to get a drunk airman to leave his cadets alone the "orficcer" wouldn't have got past first base.

[Vulpecula]

Very interesting points made by all on this thread, what would the next step be? Put all points of view into a pot and send it off to someone that will make a decision?

Working on a squadron over the last three years, has been extremely challenging for me, especially as I have a very demanding roll (which I am sure that the rest of you balance quite comfortably). The ATC has released skills that I thought I never had. For one I have a lot more time and respect for teenagers! NEVER thought I would say that! And for another I have a lot more patience with said teenagers! NEVER EVER thought I would say that!! In the end I am pro the "work with the cadets" point of view. But would agree with the "more training" - I would like more as you are better informed for the cadets, but would agree that even corporation HR departments don't like the idea of a "Youth Leader", would have no problem however with a Reserve status.

I have also had the pleasure of working with regular service personnel, that have given me enthusiasm and encouragement to take the plunge into the VR(T) – And at no time have I ever heard a bad thing said about the ATC, CCF or even VR(T), until viewing comments on this site… I must admit though I have seen some daft and some unforgivable situations occur at the hands of VR(T) officers. And I am trying to be one... Well if I do eventually get there I have now the knowledge of everyone's thoughts on the subject! Must make me a better person - Right?

[mgdaviso]

Originally Posted by RayDarr

mgdaviso,
OK, no plod, I can see that is quite likely, but there is a duty Sgt, and Orderly Officer, and a bunch of guys in the guard room. Same thing applies. You don't need a commission to get a bunch of drunks to go away, just common sense. I rather expect that if your VR(T) bloke had relied on his commission to get a drunk airman to leave his cadets alone the "orficcer" wouldn't have got past first base.

There was a MOD police man on the gate, a guy on stag operating the barrier, and the single RAF copper. end of.

OCA solved the problem - he closed the pub.

NB: this was due to ongoing problems, and not just the problems caused my the idiot minority to the cadet camp.

I suppose that would then depend on the size, stature, and presence of the orficer.

and in re-reading your posts - what is your hang up with the VR(T)?

Have you met too many idiots, and not enough of the good guys? You've got to look at this in proportion - it's always the small minority that spoil it for the rest (a la Iraq beatings)

[RayDarr]

When it was formed in WW2 as a pre service orgaisation, the VR(T) was valid. Later, that role continued through the days of conscription, again, a valid need for the VR(T). However, the ATC?CCF are no longer pre service organisations. Now, there is as much, if not more emphasis on "Citizenship" as there is on drill, theory of flight, and the other "air force" subjects. Why therefore do we need a reserve members of the RAF running this youth organisation? The Girls Venture Corps, now small but still functioning, is uniformed, has a rank structure, and works well; but they don't give a commission to their adult staff.
Some years back, the RAFVR was absorbed into the RAuxAF. These reserves train for, and are called up to augment the RAF. their officers complete an exacting course before they are granted their commission, involving distance learning over several months, and a 2 week running around Cranwell course. They are required to return to Cranwell for a weekend of exams before their commission is confrmed. This process takes up to a year, and reflects the fact that once in uniform, the reserve officer must act to the same standards, with the same knowledge as their regular counterpart. Can the VR(T) officer say the same? No he can't, unless he/she has been regular or active reserve officer in the past. Why therefore should a VR(T) officer wear the same uniform, and aspire to the same privilages as a regular/active reserve officer? He/she does a different job, has a different knowledge base, has no call up committment, does not do CCS, fitness test or anything more than a week reading and writing course. It is not the same thing at all.

The ATC/CCF, does a very important job, and I while I would welcome their officers into my mess, squadron or unit, I still do not see why they must be part of the RAF. Parallel to, but no longer part of.

[Postman Plod]

but... nobody is pretending its the same thing, apart from a few walts...? Anyway, surely the 3 letters VRT differentiate us from the Auggies or regulars? Just like the Wavy Navy for the SCC?

[RayDarr]

Postman Plod,
You make my point for me. The Wavy Navy rank is only used in the SCC. I am suggesting that ATC/CCF Officers wear RAF uniform with an equivalent "Wavy Navy" rank. Then you can have an Air Cadet commission, given out by the Air Cadet organisation to stick on your wall, and everyone will know you are an Air Cadet Officer. (Yes, we know that is what the VR(T) means, but while your people hold the same commissions as our people, some of your people will continue to expect our people to fall over backwards for them) As I have said before, parallel, but not part of.
And by the way it's Oggies not Auggies

[Postman Plod]

Terribly sorry - easy mistake to make!

I'm still not quite getting this - I see the point you are trying to make, but surely same rank, same braid, different organisation solves the problem? Or are we actually kind of saying the same thing? Is it purely down to a bit of paper - the commissioning scroll? What if the VRT transferred to the ATC and simply lost the bit of paper and had ATC instead of VRT?? Same as the ACF (in most cases)?

[RayDarr]

Almost there Mr Plod. However, same uniform and same braid means those who would spoof our regular airmen into thinking they had more power than they in fact do, would still get away with this.
Try same uniform but different braid and cap badge. ATC/CCF officer now obviously not RAF, but the adult leader of the cadet group visiting the Station this week etc etc etc.
You can give them an ATC Commission signed by the AOC Air Cadets or whoever you like, but it is not the same as the existing item, and would show authority only within the Air Cadet organisation.
ATC Adult W/O's wear "ATC" collar tags, you could give these to all adult ranks instead of the VR(T) which would be consigned to history.

The aim of all this is to preserve dignity and rank structure within the adult staff in the Air Cadet organisation while making it obvious to all ranks in RAF/RAuxAF that these uniformed guys are exactly what it said on the tin and have no authority over RAF personnel in any way at all.

[diginagain]

have no authority over RAF personnel in any way at all.

Sorry to drag this saga back to the top, but I'm sure that RayDarr's last post should have included the caveat that in the event that the safety of the cadets is compromised, the Adult Staff hold the authority over anyone. We, and by that I mean any member of the staff, be it CI, ANCO or VR(T) are responsible and accountable for our cadets.

Perhaps in this we find the crux of why, whilst the VR(T) commission is contentious, it remains in place.

[RayDarr]

Diginagain,
Of course the adult staff are responsible for the safety of the cadets. As are scout leaders responsible for the safety of scouts in their charge, and the GVC leaders, and so on. Should we commission all these as well then?
No, sorry, you do not need a commission in the armed forces of the crown to discharge this responsibility.
While cadets are in the charge of the ATC adult staff, the Senior RAF officer of the establishment they are visiting must ensure through Risk Assessment that those visiting his/her station remain safe. As cadets often get involved in minor tasks on stations while at camp, this could be argued to be a "Work Experience" placement, and therefore a Young Persons Risk Assessment should be carried out. These assessments should be forwarded to the parents before the work Experience begins. How many of those get completed? Not many I bet. How many Air Cadet Camp Commandants ask for them? Under the Occupiers Liability Act, visitors to an RAF unit must be kept safe by the occupier, in this case the RAF. so if a cadet has an accident on an RAF establishment, the Service, may well be liable for compensation, irrespective of the role of the ATC/CCF Adult staff.
The senior member of the RAF present at a cadet activity on a RAF station, could be a humble airman who may because of his training and knowledge see that a cadet activity is standing into danger. Even though the activity may be supervised by a VR(T) officer, who while commissioned, may not have the experience required in the activity being undertaken. the airman has the authority and duty under Health and Safety at Work law to stop the activity at once. However, the presence of a commissioned officer even though he is VR(T) may confuse the airman, and so prevent him from getting involved and stopping a potentially dangerous situation. For this reason, ATC/CCF leaders should not be commissioned into the RAF, but should be readily identifiable by cap badge, rank braid and rank title as a youth leader, who while affiliated to the RAF is not part of it.

[incubus]

Originally Posted by mgdaviso

I'm sorry - I'm sticking to my mantra, because it's what I believe in.
Fix the recruitment and training.

I'm going to put another spin on this - the background is for the non-ACO people here

Up till 3 years ago, the uniformed adult staff consisted of AWOs and VR(T). VR(T) outnumbered AWOs by a considerable number. The AWO was seen as concentrating in dress, drill and discipline, CIs with teaching and VR(T) with the organizing and running bit, though the nature of the beast means that the jobs are not that clearly defined in reality and you have CIs running units, VR(T) teaching drill (shudder!!) and so on. The whole of the ATC was very top-heavy.

However, a change to the structure in 2003 means that we now have a range of Adult SNCOs: ASgt, AFS, AWO. The opportunity is there to skew the rank structure in favour of the ASNCO and limit the numbers of VR(T). You can then be more selective and apply higher standards, thereby weeding out most of the twats (remember that some twattish traits are seen as desirable by some senior officers )
It ought to be easy enough to require a level of previous service (either regular or ASNCO) before being commissioned in the VR(T) and training in sensible man management techniques would be essential.

I support the VR(T) - I like the level of ties it gives us to the parent service and I have seldom seen it cause actual problems but I do acknowledge that some people take it way too seriously. Personally speaking, I won't go the route of VR(T) because it is a Kelloggs commission - I've missed my chance of getting a real one and would feel like a cheat, but that is a personal opinion and not condemnation of the whole concept. Good VR(T) officers never forget that they got their commission with their cereal and only had to do a 1 week course some time afterwards and will concentrate on their role as a leader of cadets. The waving about of rank on an RAF base is seldom necessary and seldom helpful.

[Cat5 in the Hat]

Originally Posted by RayDarr

The Wavy Navy rank is only used in the SCC. I am suggesting that ATC/CCF Officers wear RAF uniform with an equivalent "Wavy Navy" rank. Then you can have an Air Cadet commission, given out by the Air Cadet organisation to stick on your wall, and everyone will know you are an Air Cadet Officer. (Yes, we know that is what the VR(T) means, but while your people hold the same commissions as our people, some of your people will continue to expect our people to fall over backwards for them)

The RAFVR(T) do not profess to be the RAF or the RAuxAF, or indeed "hold the same commisions as our people [RAF/RAuxAF]". The RAFVR(T) are not commisioned officers in the RAF, or the RAuxAF. They are commisioned into the RAFVR (as per wording on scroll).

As you point out, the SCC have wavy navy bands to differentiate them from the Full Timers. The RAFVR(T) have gilt VRT badges on their rank slides to differentiate them from the regulars. Fairly simple eh?

I suppose you'd better disband the RAFVR(UAS) too. You don't need to be in that to fly and drink beer?

I'm interested as to the source of your animosity towards the hard working, guys who put in alot of time to the corps. Did a VR(T) steal your lolly when you were younger?

[dinoorin]

Having sat here for a while and read this thread. I have now decided to add my thoughts.
1. Your's, our's, their's, plastic, fake. I think are some of the words being banded about here.
Why does there need to be a them and us. Everyone wears the same uniform (given some have VRT on them). I suspect this has a lot more to do with axe and personal than a constructive look at how the organisation should be run.
2. Whilst the air training corps is not a recruiting tool. It does report to the RAF and does give these youngsters a good start for a service career.
Therefore the staff should be in uniform and should be part of the service. I do however think that the training should be increased (not easy with peoples home / work commitments)
3. I am ex reg (army) and now VRT. I was a CI for about 4 years before being invited to apply for the VRT commision.
I do feel odd that 30 year WO's salute me. But having said that they are not saluting me, they are saluting the queen (unless things have changed drastically since I left the reg's). I think this is a point people are missing, it also makes me wonder if some of these old reg officers are missing the point about the salute.
4. VRT is here to stay, unless of course RAYDARR you are MRAF and about to change things. Therefore lets get this thread back to the original question / answer - yes it would appear that quite a few ATC peeps use view this thread.
5. Finally, I am very proud to now be a part of the RAF. I would like to think that I uphold the ethos of the service to both the staff (reg and ATC) and the cadets. I think that perhaps people should put down their baggage and look to suport this small number of people that do a lot more for the RAF in the public than individuals are alluding to.
I await some constructive