Good question maybe “Staff”?? I cant see it being SGT…
I am about to go into uniform myself but it looks like I will bypass the white tabs being a ex reg SNCO.
Good question maybe “Staff”?? I cant see it being SGT…
I am about to go into uniform myself but it looks like I will bypass the white tabs being a ex reg SNCO.[/quote]
My WWO has told me they will still be refered to as SGt
Good question maybe “Staff”?? I cant see it being SGT…
I am about to go into uniform myself but it looks like I will bypass the white tabs being a ex reg SNCO.[/quote]
My WWO has told me they will still be refered to as SGt[/quote]
Call me stupid but if they are to be called SGT give them the tapes if they cant have the tapes they cant be a SGT as they are not wearing the rank I dont think this has been thought through…
Give them the tapes and let them hold the rank you wouldnt give a cadet NCO a white tab when they are acting before doing an NCO course…
I’m not saying I totally agree with the decision to call them SGT, but it’s not a bad decision.
I think it’s been introduced to encourage new SGT(ATC)s to go to ATF and nothing else. It’s not like it’s to protect them from too much responsibility too soon like a new VR(T).
I find ‘mate’ or ‘pal’ works quite well, personally.
Off Cdts are referred to as Sir/Ma’am so i can’t see why a white tabbed Sgt shouldnt be called Sgt,
what will the rank be known as, if only on paper Sgt(ATC)Trg ?
[quote=“steve679” post=7929]Off Cdts are referred to as Sir/Ma’am so i can’t see why a white tabbed Sgt shouldnt be called Sgt,
what will the rank be known as, if only on paper Sgt(ATC)Trg ?[/quote]
Sir or Ma’am is not a rank Sgt is and you would only call someone SGt if they hold that rank if they are not wearing it they are not a SGT even A/Sgt would where the rank and be called SGT but A/SGT on paper
I still think “Staff” would be a better option untill they wear the tapes just like you would address a SI Airman/woman
Now you’ve done it. The great and the good have an idea and you’ve highlighted they forget to fill all the gaps. They’ll need to order more biscuits now for another round of meetings.
Now you’ve done it. The great and the good have an idea and you’ve highlighted they forget to fill all the gaps. They’ll need to order more biscuits now for another round of meetings.[/quote]
Have to say this did make me laugh that much I just spat Tea everywhere :mad:
Surely the simpliest thing is to not promote to Sgt(ATC) or go into uniform at all until they have been to ATF and successfully passed the SSIC, that way no one coming in from then on will be able to avoid the courses.
The way I see it effectivly they are not being promoted to SGT untill after the course anyway with the new system unless they are ex reg SNCO
[quote=“zinggy” post=7935]The way I see it effectivly they are not being promoted to SGT untill after the course anyway with the new system unless they are ex reg SNCO[/quote]I’d suggest that you see it incorrectly, though the system as it stands is shabby. They are still SNCOs (realistically, Sgts) even if they are wearing different insignia. A Sgt doesn’t stop being a Sgt simply because they aren’t wearing 3 chevrons.
This is all very messy and I hope they sort it out sharpish.
They are bound to stay being referred to as Sgts, surely? There was a precedent from the parent service when it came to VR(T), because white tabbed officers in training are Officer Cadets.
There is no such precedent for the SNCO; call them Sgts. Think of what HQACs intention was with this; it’s to get them to ATF quicker. The shiny white targets will most likely do that, no need to upheave everything and create a new ‘rank’ as it were.
[quote=“incubus” post=7937][quote=“zinggy” post=7935]The way I see it effectivly they are not being promoted to SGT untill after the course anyway with the new system unless they are ex reg SNCO[/quote]I’d suggest that you see it incorrectly, though the system as it stands is shabby. They are still SNCOs (realistically, Sgts) even if they are wearing different insignia. A Sgt doesn’t stop being a Sgt simply because they aren’t wearing 3 chevrons.
This is all very messy and I hope they sort it out sharpish.[/quote]
But they do how can you tell if they are a SGT if they dont have 3 chevrons? If they are still Sgt’s then they need the 3 to show thats what they are I know im going a bit OTT here but you wouldnt walk around with no tabs and say its ok im still a Sgt even though im not wearing the rank who ever thought this up needs to have a word with themself
I wouldn’t put it past them bringing that in next… :unsure:
[quote=“zinggy” post=7939]But they do how can you tell if they are a SGT if they dont have 3 chevrons?[/quote]You can’t tell, but plenty of people who need to know will know. It doesn’t seem to cause any consternation when they are in civvies and when it beds into the collective consciousness people will adapt.
That’ll be in the next 5 year plan or Cadet 2025 vision then.
It’s the cadets I feel sorry for. After Saturday I will have 4 staff wearing near identical rank slides. 1 needs to be saluted, the others not. 3 called one thing, the 4th another. And the distinctions between the two ranks, while obvious to people with ‘the eye’ will be impervious to new cadets. Brilliant.
thank you for the clarification, i am aware of this, i am talking about how we refer to the Staff member in person, the appropriate compliment.
thus Officers (Off Cadets or otherwise) are referred to as Sir/Ma’am as appropriate and so questioned if a pre-ATF Sgt would still be referred to as a Sgt and how we would indicate this in writing.
NB the use of “Adult” prefixing rank, and the use of A/SNCO went out long ago
[quote=“steve679” post=7956][quote=“zinggy” post=7930]
Sir or Ma’am is not a rank Sgt is
[/quote]
thank you for the clarification, i am aware of this, i am talking about how we refer to the Staff member in person, the appropriate compliment.
thus Officers (Off Cadets or otherwise) are referred to as Sir/Ma’am as appropriate and so questioned if a pre-ATF Sgt would still be referred to as a Sgt and how we would indicate this in writing.
NB the use of “Adult” prefixing rank, and the use of A/SNCO went out long ago[/quote]
Only dress regs have changed. Dress regs don’t spell out how we refer to each other. They could decide that all WOs wore Cpl tapes if they really wanted to. They’d still be refered to as sir and when written WO(ATC).
Nothing has changed apart from the dress. Therefore, they are still called Sgt and written SGT(ATC).