Is there an actual reason for this? Especially with the RAFVR(T) commission gone, why can’t CFC Officers be actual rank
2 Likes
Because they just copy and pasted everything across?
4 Likes
In my time Jnr Tech was always seen as J/T in anything other than official documentation. Similarly Chf Tech was C/T.
1 Like
That’s a good point… it would save a lot of money on re-ranking for people
Now it’s all CFC. Why?
I get it when it was all RAFVR(T), but now it’s completely separate from the RAF, bar mimicking their structure, so I don’t understand why the promotions aren’t substantive in the same way.
Doesn’t stop you dropping a rank of you do a lower-ranking job as it does with FTRS etc.
1 Like
If you drop down a rank when you’re doing the lower ranked job then seriously what’s the difference?
They don’t want people keeping the same rank when they drop down because it’s harder to pay VA at a lower rate than your substantive rank.
When you retire, assuming you’ve done your minimum time then my understanding is that you retire in your highest rank (acting).
Yes but that’s the point.
If you were regular or reserve, you’d retain that higher rank, substantive. You would still hold a lower rank of you took a demotion at any point. But the system recognises the highest responsibilities you held.
Now your officers no longer need to worry about being VR(T), and therefore held at fg off for their substantive rank, why aren’t those above fg off substantive promotions. Because we all know it’s no longer the RAF.
Again, doesn’t stop you demoting to fulfil other roles, but your retained rank should be the highest, not arbitrarily limited at fg off when this is now an entirely separate organisation.
And if the argument is “well it’s not a real rank, so why does it matter?” You’d be right, so stop quibbling and make them substantive promotions (BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATTER).
1 Like
The whole thing is a waste of time that is designed as far as I can tell to damage morale and to clog up Wong level roles rather than facilitate the healthy churn that they would like to see.
4 Likes
The number of wing commanders would very quickly be in the hundreds…
Stuff of nightmares that
To put more nuance into it, I’m talking retained rank, rather than “acting above fg off”.
So if you want to leave after being a wing commander, fine.
If not, you’re ranked for the role you’re doing (though I’d set a minimum of flt lt for regression if you’ve served at the rank or above for longer than 8 years, because that recognises your experience).
The point is that your retired rank would be the higher one.
This arbitrary “acting flt lt - wg cdr” is my main beef here. The old reasons made sense (you’re always a fg off in the VR(T). But now it’s a CFC, so that’s gone.
1 Like
The rank you wear indicates the level of responsibility you have volunteered for.
Plt Off is your training rank
Fg Off is your substantive rank that you operate at (& your base level of competency & responsibility)
Flt Lt, Sqn Ldr, Wg Cdr, Grp Capt are ranks based on the extra responsibility you have volunteered to take on. Trouble is people are too obsessed with hierarchy that they going from Sqn Ldr or Flt Lt to Fg Off is considered a demotion (I.e. a punishment) & not a reversion.
How many more officers would we likly keep if we give the offer to revert on rank & responsibilities when things come too much & not “keep doing the same amount or leave”
It is very common in volunteer organisation for volunteers to go up & down in rank as the responsibilities they volunteer for change.
Personally I would push for SNCO substantive rank to be FS with WO promotions being role based & from which people revert.
& bringing back to topic, we should do away with the white backed A/Fg Off rank insignia as it’s just been blue petered.
Simplest option for commission from a SNCO is that you become an A/Plt Off until you complete the course but you graduate your course as a Fg Off.
Going fwd as we now have combined courses & no need to repeat if commissioned - do we even need A/Fg Off anymore?
1 Like
I think we are thinking in the same lines, I have no objection if someone’s retired rank for the post cadet life functions be the highest one they have achieved.
1 Like
But would it? How many Wing Commanders hand about after doing their 8 years?
I’d agree with that at the very least, there is no good reason to bounce experienced Squadron Commanders down to Fg Off.
I would argue their is a big difference in the competence of a Fg Off who has never taken on any of the extra responsibility and a Flt Lt that has spent a decade running a unit or been a Wing SME.
2 Likes
If we’re using the rank structure to teach cadets about the forces, then flt lt should be the standard rank for officers who’ve completed their development and a few years’ service, sqns should be commanded by sqn ldrs (wg cdr for flying sqns, like VGSs).
Not sure where the idea of wing staff outranking sqn commanders comes from. On most wings the only officer to outrank the sqn commanders is the wing OC. The XO is usually sqn ldr (i.e. same as the sqn commanders) and other wing officers are flt lts.
2 Likes
Our parent service has changed - I know personally, that some Catering Sqn’s has been commanded by WO’s - MT by WO’s and a Fg Off - Regt by Flt Lt… the list goes on.
Sqn Commanders should be seen like Flights on a flying Sqn therefore Flt Lt, but again I have seen (and continue to see) a mix.
For RAFAC we are short of staff across the board hence WO’s and in some cases F/Sgt’s commanding sqn’s - I do agree however there should be recognition of time served/proven development of officers…
If we’re thinking of sqns as flts, and ranking their commanders accordingly, why not call them flts? Then sectors / clusters could be sqns, with sqn ldrs in command, and everything makes more sense (including the number of sqns in each wing).
2 Likes
[quote=“Chief_Tech, post:52, topic:12728, full:true”]
This will be the case going forward so if you complete CIC as a SNCO and then commission, no need to repeat. But there will be a transition stage whilst those who did SSIC commission and for some SSIC isn’t good enough. Interested to go back to Cranwell after many years and also to see what difference there really is since my SSIC…not that I can remember much of it!
We have massive problems with volunteer staff recruitment and retention. How will rearranging the organisational deckchairs help solve that problem?
4 Likes
It’s been proposed before and is where Sectors ended up coming from.