We could just pretend we’re on SAS selection and call all volunteers “staff”
4 Likes
For arguments, I don’t identify as anything. The point was that we can adopt neutral labels for “Airpersonship” or “Marksperson” but I’m still forced to use a gender specific term despite asking not to because staff have to be addressed as SIR/Ma’am. I get that for SNCOs, but I hold no rank and would prefer to be addressed by name. OC says NO. So how does that work?
It’s inconsistently applied. This is labelling for the sake of EDI, and as someone involved in creating corporate EDI I just find this move by K as a box ticking exercise.
1 Like
No you don’t you can be addressed as
- Sir/Ma’am
- Lastname e.g. CI Smith
- Mr/Mrs/Miss
You as an individual have the agency to set what you are referred to as, as long as it’s something you are entitled to i.e. you can’t be referred to as a retired rank you once held when you are now a CI.
Speak to your Sqn CO if you are not happy but it’s very different to what’s being suggested on the terminology front where people don’t have the agency.
This is because in a crisis using unfamiliar or conflicting terminology results in confusion (e.g.simple example - NAAFI, canteen, break, stand easy refs etc) hence the need to push out a gender neutering program unfortunately complicated by English being a non-gendered language.
2 Likes
No. This is a local issue. The organisation isn’t forcing this but one individual, anecdotally. So you can’t complain about the organisation’s application of gender neutral language for generic terms.
If you prefer an agender/non-binary approach, then you should use CI Monkehfu. If it’s just Sir/Ma’am you have an issue with then Mr/Mrs/Miss Monkehfu.
If it’s your first name you want to use then I’m not completely on your side.
1 Like
Depends on what name you wish to be addressed by. Your not down the local youth club so first name wouldn’t be appropriate but going by CI Surname shouldn’t be an issue.
As to the wider topic under discussion whole I agree wholeheartedly with getting rid of gendered ranks (not that we have any) I do think that becoming the language Police for other terms in common usage is a bit pointless. (In some cases).
Want to change Airmanship to Aircraft Knowledge? Yep makes perfect sense and the replacement term is modern and understandable. Changing Marksmanship when that is still the term in use in the rest of society, is making a change for changes sake and any replacement is likely to be a bad use of language.
But Airmanship is still in use as terminology during flight training and the overall aviation industry.
Definition from the CAA
Airmanship is the consistent use of good judgment and well-developed skills to accomplish flight objectives
Id argue that Aircraft knowledge is a complety different subject - a la Airframes, Powerplants etc
7 Likes
It is, but is the term really the equivalent of what we teach?
At a local level we teach aviation knowledge, I would argue that’s not the same thing as Airmanship. Now if your a Flight Staff Cadet I would say you are learning Airmanship.
1 Like
I always addressed and referred to CIs as Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss etc. surname.
“CI Smith” shouldn’t exist, because CI is a role, not a term of address.
6 Likes
SNCOs are addressed by their rank, not ever sir or ma’am.
It has nothing to do with rank. Cadets are children (or, in the case of staff cadets, treated like children) and you are an adult. Cadets should address adults as sir or ma’am (in the absence of another rank or ‘staff’ for SIs below NCO rank).
1 Like
But “Mr Smith, CI” sounds like some sort of private detective. 
1 Like
woperson
1 Like
Well, it’ll stop any discussions about menopause……
1 Like
CI is neither a rank / title prefix nor post-nominal suffix, in exactly the same way that Flt Lt Jones can be the OC, but is neither ‘OC Jones’ nor ‘Flt Lt Jones OC’.
1 Like
Off topic, but my mother always said that women’s biggest problems always start with men (menopause and menstruation)
2 Likes
Yet “staff” is a precedent which has been set in many areas and isn’t a rank (except for when it is, but in this case it’s often not).
You’ve pointed to the use of “Staff” yourself which is also none of these things. We can either use role descriptors in the absence of rank or we can’t. Any delineation between acceptable and not acceptable use cases is purely arbitrary.
2 Likes
AB/Mne/AS2/AS1/AS(T)/Pte/Fus/Gnr Smith (apologies to any corps I’ve missed) may well be addressed as Staff, but never ‘Staff Smith’, as this is not their rank or title (unless it is actually SSgt Smith).
Edit: ‘Staff’ does present itself as an obvious option for a CI who doesn’t want to be addressed as Sir/Ma’am/Mr/Mrs/Ms though.
We’re going off topic but CI is listed as a rank on SMS & if I remember correctly Cadet Training Ranges under Rank requirements.
It’s used as a rank on Tg forms so by usage & custom it’s become a de facto rank similar to how there’s no role of Prime-minister just the First Lord of Treasury.
The reason why Sir/Ma’am is used is that originally (I.e. 1930s) you had civilian teachers providing the academic classification syllabus with the uniformed officers providing the military input. Hence the civilian instructors were treated like school teachers so it follows the school terms of address.
So bringing back to the (sub) topic, the terms of use address Sir/Ma’am/Miss will probably change when schools come up with an alternative.
3 Likes
This is exactly the phrase that I was about to use.
Ok, you’ve got me there on that detail, but there is case for a term to be used which isn’t a rank.
I think we just need to accept that it’s something of a colloquialism (or indeed a cadetism) for the term CI to be used in place of a rank.
And then perhaps we can broaden the thread back out to the original topic.
Not sure if I’ve missed it higher up, but, Principles of Airmanship was reworked and renamed ages ago to Flying Operations. No one batted an eye when that change was made… It’s already gender neautral!
4 Likes