ACF Non-Commissioned Instructors

#1
Having read about TA A List and B List Commissions in here recently I thought I'd mentioned something I heard in passing, to see if anyone else has heard it, and can shed more light:

The ACF might be considering putting non-commissioned adults on some form of TA 'B' list in the same manner as its Officers. Apparently, every Detachment is supposed to have an Officer in charge, which clearly is not the case any more. Having only NCO AIs (and therefore civilians) running Detachments might be a problem, apparently.

So, have I got it all wrong (likely) or can anyone add to this?
 
#2
Fairly routine now. Westbury run a Cadet Force Commisioning Board (CFCB) which will identify those AIs who are suitable for a TA Gp B Commission. Individual Cadet Bns will have their own pre-selection process which may, or may not, be run in conjunction with the Regional Training Centre in that particular Bde area.

A good thing in my opinion.
 
#3
Pitster said:
Having read about TA A List and B List Commissions in here recently I thought I'd mentioned something I heard in passing, to see if anyone else has heard it, and can shed more light:

The ACF might be considering putting non-commissioned adults on some form of TA 'B' list in the same manner as its Officers. Apparently, every Detachment is supposed to have an Officer in charge, which clearly is not the case any more. Having only NCO AIs (and therefore civilians) running Detachments might be a problem, apparently.

So, have I got it all wrong (likely) or can anyone add to this?
Are you saying that SNCO's will be put on same footing as Officers i.e. subject to mil law and have mod 90 endorsed cadets? (although that is being phased out I heard)
 
#4
Before I left Devon ACF 2 Years ago, they were speaking about the chances of us NCO's coming under TA Regs, so that we could have the authority to sign for weapons and thus be able to do all the stuff officers can. Maybe this has moved forward? But then again maybe its just an idea that bLiar has come up with to show the Media how full the Army is?
 
#5
Tango34_UK said:
Before I left Devon ACF 2 Years ago, they were speaking about the chances of us NCO's coming under TA Regs, so that we could have the authority to sign for weapons and thus be able to do all the stuff officers can. Maybe this has moved forward? But then again maybe its just an idea that bLiar has come up with to show the Media how full the Army is?
I was signing weapons in and out, when I was an NCO its not just a thing officers do, is that a normal thing in Devon? At one camp I had CTT guys asking me, as a duty WO, when it would be convinent for me to let them put weapons back into the arm`s cote and they were genuine not sarcastic .
 
#6
The way it was explained to me is this:

It is called "embodiment", and the basic difference between officers and PI/SI/SSI/SMI is that Officers have the TA B Commission and are therefore part of the Army, and in theory elegible for call-up.

It stems from the argument that certain people (tax-dodging students like myself) could be using it as a part-time job, but it is not considered as such.

If im wrong, please correct, as im not sure on this, as i was thinking of applying for AUO but am concerned by these aspects of it.
 
#7
if we do come under TA regs and being subject to Military laws , that would mean we would be liable for call up unless specific regulations are put in to prevent that.
 
#9
Probs not, as you would have left the army, and then re-signed on as an ACF instructor.

My point was, as someone said, that unless controls were put in place, you could be called up as a civilian effectively if you were embodied.
 
#10
Xplosiverab said:
Probs not, as you would have left the army, and then re-signed on as an ACF instructor.

My point was, as someone said, that unless controls were put in place, you could be called up as a civilian effectively if you were embodied.
ACF officers are not subjected to call up. If this strange thread does become true, why on earth would the AI's be subjected to a call up.

It would be a pretty bad state of affairs if ACF people were needed to help out, lol.

I can understand the bit about the right sort of person (not necessary an officer) in charge of detachments. It's quite a role to do it well and successfully. The rewards are little, other that you know you 'made a difference'.
 
#12
dwills said:
If this strange thread does become true, why on earth would the AI's be subjected to a call up.
They wouldn't be subject to call up at all but it is definitely the case that more effort is being put into recruiting ACF Offrs from ACF AIs/NCOs. Land Directive LAND/RF 2461 dated 1 Dec 05 refers.
 
#14
abacus said:
dwills said:
If this strange thread does become true, why on earth would the AI's be subjected to a call up.
They wouldn't be subject to call up at all but it is definitely the case that more effort is being put into recruiting ACF Officers from ACF AIs/NCOs. Land Directive LAND/RF 2461 dated 1 Dec 05 refers.

Most officers come from the AI pool, where else would they come from!!!!

Very few have come straight in as officers, and in my experience turn out to be the worst. The ones who were AI's for a few years then becoming Officers are the right sort. First off you can see what they are like, how motivated they are etc. It also has the advantage that they will understand the ACF better...
 
#15
Very few have come straight in as officers, and in my experience turn out to be the worst. The ones who were AI's for a few years then becoming Officers are the right sort. First off you can see what they are like, how motivated they are etc. It also has the advantage that they will understand the ACF better...
Very true, after all the ACF is much trumpeted as a youth organisation in green. Its not about teaching kids to bayonet anything that moves.

So many AI's have come and gone, as they're still got their army head on - it takes them a long time to calm down and realise they're teaching kids, not soldiers.
 
#16
A couple of years back I heard this rumour too. Sounds a good idea to me: at the moment an AI can stick two fingers up at the Army and vice versa and nothing can be done about it (apart from the Commandant sacking him/her on behalf of the RFCA). I take it the terms of service of AIs would remain exactly the same apart from they'd become subject to military law in the same way as TA soldiers (eg. during training (call out too for the TA) only).
 
#17
Country_Bumpkin said:
A couple of years back I heard this rumour too. Sounds a good idea to me: at the moment an AI can stick two fingers up at the Army and vice versa and nothing can be done about it (apart from the Commandant sacking him/her on behalf of the RFCA). I take it the terms of service of AIs would remain exactly the same apart from they'd become subject to military law in the same way as TA soldiers (eg. during training (call out too for the TA) only).
Quite true, its only ACF commissioned officers that are subject to mil. law and regs. All other ranks remain 'civillian.' More than two fingers has been stuck in both directions.

ACF Commissioned officer are not and cannot be called up, their commission would only ever require them to serve in the event of the UK being invaded or similar. So quite low down the list, as we'd be well into national conscription by then.
 
#18
ok Ive only just started to assist with my old battalion and so am not totally wise to thwe ins and out of theresponsiblilities of the instructors.So could anyone one offer easons that would neccesitate the need for this change?
 
#19
Country_Bumpkin said:
A couple of years back I heard this rumour too. Sounds a good idea to me: at the moment an AI can stick two fingers up at the Army and vice versa and nothing can be done about it (apart from the Commandant sacking him/her on behalf of the RFCA). I take it the terms of service of AIs would remain exactly the same apart from they'd become subject to military law in the same way as TA soldiers (eg. during training (call out too for the TA) only).
I think this is the crux of the point, as I heard it rumoured: non-commissioned AIs would then be somehow accountable. Though if they can already sign weapons in and out and so on, then I don't know what the necessity would be. Apart from me getting my old number back, perhaps? :lol:
 
#20
as far as i can make out its not a massively important change.The instrustors are presummably accountable within the acf rank structure,and obviously the various laws related to youth organisations.And as the acf is NOT the army then why make it more so????I dont want to detract from the organisation-i think its worthwhile one,one i'd like to help in return for the experience they gave me.