Talk:Air Training Corps: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:00, 16 February 2011

Text and/or other creative content from Air Training Corps was copied or moved into Air Training Corps Activities with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Military history: Aviation / British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Aviation: Gliding Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the gliding project.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Air Commodore Chamier

Might I point out that it is an absolute disgrace that Air Commodore Chamier has got a few sentences for his STUB article. It needs to be expanded immediately. Even an ACP would provide more information. Dev920 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article for Chamier. Feedback and revisions welcomed Pastbury 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the reference link lead to a Facist website with no mention of Chamier? I will remove it as it looks like a malious link--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squadron Links

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that there is no need for the long (and growing) list of links to squadron websites. A single link to the complete list at the main HQAC website would in my opinion be far neater. If nobody objects I shall remove these links at some point. Sc147 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law9181 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) : maybe there should be a specail page for these links?[reply]

I removed these links from the main page:

Links to ATC Squadron websites

Links to ATC Wing websites

Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Wing
Bristol and Gloucestershire Wing
Dorset & Wilts Wing
Durham/Northumberland Wing
Essex Wing
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wing
Herts and Bucks wing
Kent Wing
London Wing
Merseyside Wing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.96.115 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Middlesex Wing
Norfolk and Suffolk Wing
Staffordshire Wing
Thames Valley Wing
West Mercian Wing

Links to ATC Region websites

Links to ATC Region special interest web sites

London & South East Region Music

Sc147 15:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Point

Can people please make sure that when altering information they get it correct. There is no obligation to attend and course for Instructor Cadets, JNCOs or SNCOs. These are local rules and do not apply to the whole corps. As well as this can people please avoid making points which relate to their squadron only, such as rules for the wearing of Stable Belts etc.

RE: Courses for Instuctor Cadets [ http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/news_laser.htm]

Quote form ATC site on the laser review

7. A training course for Instructor Cadets will be introduced for delivery at wing level under the standardisation of the Rgnl Trg Off. This will be designed in the main to teach responsibilities as an adult and as a supervisor.

I feel you may also want to get your infomation correct.

--- ---

Content

I feel the content of this wiki is in danger of becoming too convoluted or "syrupy". There is a fair bit of superfluous information creeping in that is simply bogging down the topic.

An encyclopaedia is a reference of information; somewhere where people look to develop their understanding of a topic. It is not a rule book or a collection of guidelines. It should provide the knowledge, sometimes opinionated I will warrant, that helps educate and that folk may refer to for information. It is after all a reference document. For example publishing ATC orders concerning stable belts do not, I feel, belong here. The wiki / encyclopaedia should give background, ethos and objectives when talking about an organisation. Not rules and orders that: concerns only those within the organisation, are already distributed through trusted formal channels, periodically change and do not not add to the general education of the reader.

The primary audience are those that know little or nothing about the ATC. True the majority who come here will be our own people, but that is not why the document is published here.

CI Houston, 287 Sqn

Stable Belts

Further to the stable belt comment on the main page. The info there is false. Stable belts are not scaled items however can be purchased privately. They may be worn at any time prior to uniformity being maintained. In practice this usually means NCO's only but in theory cadets can wear them.

Cadets most certainly are allowed to wear them the reference to the RAF Regt may be with regard to the RAF regt Clasp which obvoisly we cannot wear.

Also another point is they should not be worn with greens (except during Nijmegen where normal dress regs go out the window)

--Abjm 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say once and for all that there are NO rank restrictions on the wearing of the RAF stable belt in national regulations. According to ACP20B ACAI204 :Dress regulations for the Air Training Corps, all cadets may wear the stable belt. Local orders may place a rank restriction on the wearing of the stable belt, but they are exactly that, local orders, and need not be included in this article. Rob 301 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Old or New pattern stable belts can be worn by any cadet of uniformed member of staff in the ATC. They must not, however, be worn with dark (working) blue shirts or with DPM's when on 'exercise' - only as Barrack wear. This is the official word from HQAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.177.33 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does it say in any guideline or ACP or rules and regultions that any NCO or member of staff is allowed to swear at a cadet im just wondering because i see it a lot in all squadrons i have been in and i find it disgusting myself because most people join the Air Cadets because they want to learn things about military and gain life skills and if a child joins the ATC i honenstly doubt he/she would want to hear any verbal abuse or foul language and i think this subject should actually discussed in squadrons and by wing

09/6/06

I remember a LOT of swearing by the NCOs from my time in cadets, not so much from the officers though and I don't remember an officer ever verbally abusing someone. Mind you, the NCOs themselves are mostly children too and I certainly heard a lot worse in the playground. --JamesTheNumberless 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: ACP 1 - Ethos, Core Values and Standards in the ACO

This contains the details of what is acceptable. I think the problem is that in the millitary it is part of life and being in the ATC be take part of that on. My basic guide is that swearing is not a big issue however swearing at someone is, verbal abuse.

For an adult in a postion of authority in a youth group to swear at, towards or in the presence of young people is simply not acceptable, to use the excuse that the ATC is part of the military and that swearing is a part of military life is a poor excuse for unacceptable behaviour, as for swearing amongst cadets, this is no more acceptable or excusable and may result from poor examples from adult NCO's/Officers. Sorry to rant but having spent time as an adult leader in the Scout Association where this sort of behaviour would result in the loss of your leaders warrant then I am horrified that it seems that some adults in the cadet organisations seem happy to behave like this. I spent some time as a youth member of the ATC (many, many years ago) and there was no swearing from adults in consequence there was very little from the cadets 82.34.55.108 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, link was broken, now fixed :)
Cpl Bishop, 304 Sqn --Lukebishop 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP Jackets

I have deleted the line "*Cadets may also purchase General Purpose (GP) jackets" from the Uniform section - cadets may not wear GP Jackets, they are not optional items such as stable belts.

I think this must vary from squadron to squadron. I have know squadrons that will give out GPJs to all cadets, but my own squadron restricted them to SNCOs. (alihaig)130.246.132.26 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certain that there is no variation on this, certainly the GP Jacket is not mentioned in ACAI 204, which lists all items of uniform which cadets are permitted to wear and I believe it was promulgated in Corps Routine Orders (CROs) a while back that GPJs are not to be worn by cadets. This issue goes back to the age old debate about 'COs discretion' about certain items of uniform, i.e short sleeved shirts for cadets (not allowed), some COs discretion exists with regards to issues such as the wearing or not of the stable belt, however, this is listed as an optional item in ACAI 204, the GPJ is not. However I am of course happy to be corrected. Rob 301 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP's are Scaled for Officers only. Officially cadets are not to wear them but some squadrons relax these rules. This is not the case for CCF (RAF) cadets who can wear them but only along with their brassard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.177.33 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign and Images

I have moved the sentence about the ATC ensign that was at the very start of the article, to its own section, as it didnt make any sense where it was. I have also expanded it slightly as the practice of hoisting the ensign on parade nights was not apparant in my area when I was a cadet. If anyone has a picture or any more information it could do with some expansion. (alihaig)130.246.132.26 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed the formatting of the main image at the top of the article so it looks the same as images on other wiki articles (with the frame etc). I think it would be good to get a couple more images up here, maybe in the uniform and ranks section, to show what cadets look like and what the ranks look like, and also maybe one or two "action" shots to show what cadets do (a picture of a parade for example). (alihaig)130.246.132.26 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squadron Links

Maybe a section on how to make your uniform look the correct standard would be a good idea. I'm a new cadet and am not good at it!

That is a possible idea however in my opinion that would not really be appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are many unofficial ATC websites and forums which can provide you with that kind of advice. Or you could ask the Cadet NCOs on your squadron for advice. Rob 301 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cadet Publications

Large chunks of this article seem to be copied word-for-word from Air Cadet Publication 31. Is this considered acceptable? An electronic version of the publication is available from http://192.5.30.122/aircadets/pdf/acp31sec1.pdf I think that perhaps it is acceptable because non-classified ACPs are Crown Copyright and therefore in the public domain, or does this article need rephrasing so that it is paraphrasing the ACPs rather than copying outright?Pastbury 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: It would seem that Crown Copyright is not public domain as the government has publically stated that it is not compatible with the GNU documentation license. So the sections of this article which are directly lifted from ACPs (such as the history section) will need rewriting. I will have a go at this but if any other more experienced wikipedians want to join me then feel free to edit this page. Pastbury 10:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of this talk page

I think it is great that cadets are viewing this article and its associated discussion, but please remember this is NOT a discussion forum for matters to do with the organisation, its purpose is to discuss changes within the article. Please keep questions to do with Corps matters for other cadets/ncos/staff, or use the ATC forums.

thanks, Cpl Bishop

--Lukebishop 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Image

The image in this article claiming to be a Grob Viking winch-launched glider is in actual fact an ASW 19. If anyone has a correct image and the associated license, can they please change it? I would change it myself, but I do not have an image with the associated permissions required to upload it.

Thanks, Cpl Bishop

--Lukebishop 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squadron Padre

Please could someone add some information about the role of a squadron Padre. I believe that the Padre holds the rank of Flight Lieutenant. Is this an honorary rank? Can / must a Padre wear a uniform? what tasks does the Padre typically undertake? Do any of these things vary depending on whether the Padre is ordained or lay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.0.46 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they held the honourary rank of Sqn Ldr? 81.111.130.176 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to hold any rank, do they? I thought they were just "padres"??? 83.67.49.20 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the RAF perhaps, but within the ATC they are Padres with no rank and are not to be saluted in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.177.33 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Padres do indeed hold the "honorary" rank of Flight Lieutenant on a squadron, however they are not normally saluted as they are not a part of a military structure. A wing padre also holds the honorary rank of Wing Commander, and the Group captain rank for a regional Padre. Of course these are honorary ranks and no longer have any significant effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.136.8 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Scholarships

This section seems to of been copied directly from a website advertising the Flying Scholarships. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Cadet

Officer cadets are not a commisioned rank? At least I didn't think they were, but they are listed in the article, perhaps someone else can confirm and change accordingly?81.111.130.176 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Officer cadet is the rank someone holds until they have completed officer training, or in the case of the VR(T), the 2 weeks OIC (Officers Initial Course) at RAF Cranwell. Only then will they be commissioned into the air force and hold the rank of pilot officer. 83.67.49.20 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Having just been commissioned into the RAFVR(T) i will explain the official line on things.

Before Aug 07 newly commissioned officers were appointed Pilot Officers immediately after confirmation of passing their Regional board. As it stands, post Aug 07, as far as the RAF and the rest of the world are concerned, nothing has changed. All my official paperwork is addressed Pilot Officer. Within the ATC however, a new officer is to wear white rankslides with a centered VRT pin and called Officer Cadet. They are only allowed to wear Pilot Officer rank braid following completion of OIC. Because, as far as the RAF is concerned they are a Pilot Officer they are entitled to the usual officer compliments etc..

This system is confusing, especially for regulars who will see 'Officer Cadets' with the officers peak cap. A RAF Reg't SGT gave me a very strange look of confusion the other day when he walked past. It is important to point out that this system is only transitional. Soon in the future, the RAFVR(T) will get 'real' Officer Cadets as in the UAS who are not commissioned, this has not happened because it requires an act of parliament and is due to take place next year. I believe Air Cdre Moulds wanted to get the ball rolling before his departure and hence this transitional rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.177.33 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present, Officer Cadets are commissioned. From CRO 21 - Nov 07, order 3:

"On commissioning RAFVR(T) officers will be promulgated in the London Gazette, as now, in the rank of pilot officer, but will be known within the Corps as Officer Cadets RAFVR(T)" Jellyfish dave (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Tidy Up

I have tidied up the uniform page so that there is a staff section and a cadet section, each with sub headings for each order of dress. It might be that it actually makes more sense to list the orders of dress with a 'Cadets' and 'Staff' sub heading to each, any thoughts? I have also removed references to No 2a uniform being called No 1 (it isn't!) although I have pointed out that it may be incorrectly referred to as such. I have also removed the comment that stable belts may be worn with permission - ACAI 204 makes no reference to anyone's permission being required for any of the optional items listed. Jellyfish dave (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

Small points, but the correct titles, abbreviations and appointments are:

Squadron Commander or Officer Commanding (OC), not Commanding Officer - CO is reserved for much larger formations than an ATC sqn

(S)NCOs and WOs (ATC), not Adult NCOs/Adult Warrant Officers. Also, WOs (ATC) are not NCOs, they are a seperate category - when referring to NCOs and WOs it should be expressed as NCOs/WOs (ATC), NCOs (ATC) and WOs (ATC), etc.

Jellyfish dave (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

This section does not make sense:

Quote: Membership

Junior Cadets

People aged 13 to 17 and three months, the official joining age, and those who are not yet enrolled, are given the title 'Junior Cadet' (formerly 'Probationer') as they can go along to most meetings to get a feel for the ATC, but cannot participate in most activities off squadron, such as flying or going on camps. They do not normally need to pay subscription fees, as they would not receive uniform.

Cadets

Young people can join the ATC at any time between the ages of 13 and 16 and 9 months.

According to this everybody who is 13 - 17 which is the bulk is a Junior cadet? Four years seems a long time to be a probationer?--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activities Article Split

The Activities article is now very long at nearly 4,000 words and might benefit from its own article in much the same way as the uniform section. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellyfish dave (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is large enough to produce a new page from, but would it really satisfy wiki notability standards? Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The membership section is largely repetitive ramblings could be cut down--86.27.184.216 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments on this section? Could it be cut down? Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why is the galley of images i the middle of the artcile. Seems an odd place to put it as the images dont relate to anything being talked about. Ziaix (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the simple reason when an article gets too many images they have to be migrated to a gallery, this is standard practice on Wikipedia. If the gallery is removed it will either be put back or less images will be used. This is meant to be an encyclopedic entry on the ATC not a picture book.--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nijmegen Vierdaagse Marches Medal

I'm afraid this is in the wrong section, its not a "Qualification award" merely merely a competitor medal, will be moved--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once Again

We are getting nit picking from people about ranks and membership, to be honest non of this is of interest in what should be an encyclopaedia entry about the ATC, if it can't be made readable without the constant poor editing then sections will be removed--Pandaplodder (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Leaders Course

Would someone be able to confirm that the maroon lanyard is actually awarded for completion of the Junior leader's course, as I understood it to be awarded for completion of the Air Cadet Leadership Course. A separate, although similar sounding course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.136.8 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maroon lanyard is awarded for the JL course - the insignia for the ACLC is a brassard badge.Jellyfish dave (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split

I am starting to wonder whether some of the items on this article would be better split into separate articles - having just edited the uniform section I've noticed that there's enough information in there for a whole article. Jellyfish dave (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of stuff there and maybe it would be worthwhile to split the article. I have added a split section to the uniform section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a split section notification to the activities section of this page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing that request now. --MWOAP (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Training Corps Activities

The article Air Training Corps Activities needs a lot of work doing on it, it is badly referenced. Can someone start to do something with it because it won't survive as it presently stands. Pandaplodder (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on Leadership have been worked on, images have been added. What would help there is some images of things like marksman, first aid, gliding badges and so on.

I have also migrated the section on music camps to the music section in the Activities page as it could be deemed as duplication. Pandaplodder (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Training Corps squadrons

The article List of Air Training Corps squadrons has been flagged up by MilborneOne as he is not sure that the article has any encyclopedic value I am sure it breaks a lot of guidelines about list for the sake of it. Would be better as an article about Air Training Corps squadrons which could give some background into the how they are organised, established and closed. It has no historic information at all. I tend to agree an list of place names won't survive much longer. What could help is perhaps Squadron crests and brief histories (such as formation and anything of note), if this isn't done then don't expect it to survive into 2011. Any thoughts. Pandaplodder

Nothing has been done so that article has been deleted, thanks for the input Pandaplodder (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force Air Cadets

References to the Air Cadet Organisation need updated to reflect the new branding of Royal Air Force Air Cadets. I've started a new article for that particular name and updated the entry for Air Cadet Organisationbut thought that someone with more history of editing this particular page should lead the edits to relect the change from the old to the new. If no one takes up the challenge I'll have a go myself in the next few weeks. Marky 12356 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 393: / Line 393: @@
 Nothing has been done so that article has been deleted, thanks for the input [[User:Pandaplodder|Pandaplodder]] ([[User talk:Pandaplodder|talk]]) 11:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
+===Royal Air Force Air Cadets===
+References to the Air Cadet Organisation need updated to reflect the new branding of [[Royal Air Force Air Cadets]]. I've started a new article for that particular name and updated the entry for [[Air Cadet Organisation]]but thought that someone with more history of editing this particular page should lead the edits to relect the change from the old to the new. If no one takes up the challenge I'll have a go myself in the next few weeks. [[User:Marky12356|Marky 12356]] ([[User talk:Marky12356|talk]]) 01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)