Not sure I entirely agree, I’m not sure how good I would’ve been as an adult SNCO, whereas I’m quite competent in the Officer role.
In fairness, though, is this not how the ACF largely does things? I’m not too close to our pongo cousins, but from what I’ve seen they do seem to have a much higher number of SNCOs (and less WOs, with the sergeant major appointments limiting that) and Officers largely only existing at Company/County level?
It varies a lot
The Coy HQ has mostly officers but also a WO on strength.
Detachments, back in the day, were led by officers with usually one SSgt/CSgt and the rest as Sgts (WOs not usually being around as you say).
More recently they had a lot of SSgts and even Sgts running detachments due to shortages of officers but they are trying to get officers back into command posts.
The main difference was they had (have?) the provisional instructor appointment, a uniformed role for CFAV completing their training. Not sure if that is still the case as I’ve not seen a PI for a while.
Most do seem to commission from SNCO as that’s the rank earned after training but I think they can (could?) go from PI to officer.
So I’ve heard that recently PI has been scrapped so people joining come straight in as Sgts. However they do initial training centrally at Coy level before joining detachments.
I do hear where you’re coming from.
I suppose my point is that there will be a core set of competencies that anyone going into uniform will need, and so if we’re not offering considerable (and adapted) training and education for the two cohorts, there can easily be a default entry point.
It can’t be a commission, because the system loses its mind if you try crossing that non-commissioned / commissioned line backwards.
So having junior ranks where you establish those core skills while getting them in uniform quickly (like our acting sgts) allows you to do that while delineating.
The only reason it feels like it diminishes the SNCO cadre if we make that the default is because we start at that rank.
In my mind, that cadre would retain more significance if it wasn’t the initial joining rank for people with no experience, but that doesn’t mean the non-commissioned pool can’t then be the default. We’ve artificially condensed the non-commissioned pool to those ranks traditionally reserved for those with very significant experience.
Imagine if you attained sgt by being around longer than a typical CFAV. Being a sgt would then tannoy considerable CFAV experience.
You could spend a few years working up to it (which is still light speed and guaranteed progression compared to the reserves and regulars).
But as we’re all responsible for young adults, I’d say “being responsible for young adults” isn’t a justification for holding SNCO rank from the off, in my opinion.
@Ben_Wakefield I don’t suppose you’re aware of whether making better use of all the NCO ranks, as we do in the reserves, has ever been spoken about?
I know a traditional counter was that we needed staff to be in the WOSM for camps etc, but now (as in the reserves), we frequently all eat in the JRM on weekends anyway, and the cadets need supervising. We could always grant acting sgt under such circumstances.
Hmm, I’ve been Adj, TrgO, D&D, ShootingO, DofEO, Oh and OC all whilst in NCO cadre. Followed by another WO as OC on the same Sqn.
I would flip it on its head & go the other way. Why do we need adult NCOs any more?
they were introduced after the LASER review but it hasn’t solved the problem long term
would make more sense to have CIs & the uniform option being officers only.
The other question would be - should their be a minimum educational qualification for going into uniform?
At present time we are running out of officers to run sqns & wings so the officer cadre needs a lot more investment than the SNCO cadre. Z
YMMV but, at least anecdotally, in my area there are a lot more officers commissioning than SNCOs being appointed. This hasn’t necessarily translated to those officers actually taking up command posts though…
I would say no. You seem to think so? What would you set it at?
I think that there is a problem that the organisation is failing to manage to persuede people to take the commission - you get dicked for OC as NCO anyway. At least taking a commission, you start off on the route to maybe run a unit, NCOs are ending up doing it because there is no one else prepared to take it on.
So here’s another interesting question.
If NCOs are getting pinged to be squadron commanders (and I know some), why don’t they commission?
I would understand if they were covering off the role temporarily (genuinely temping), but if they’re in the seat permanently…
Is this something about how we view the two camps and membership of them?
I never had a choice because I still hold a reserve commission. But I have previously decided against trying to resign my commission in the service because not being able to walk into the places I’ve called home for nearly two decades would just be too weird.
Wouldn’t have been too bad for aircrew linguist though.
Remind me of the issue it was solving…
I’d do agree that having the NCO / commissioned officer divide when we arguably need to be free to move between a wide range of roles can be a bit of a pain, unless of course we want an “up or out” model.
Some do, but like myself and others I know, as a WO I was essentaily pushed into a position I did not want to be in. Taking a commission would then be saying that it was all ok.
So you’re firmly in the “temping” category?
We’ve been round the block of NCO vs officer cadres many times.
Though there could be some merit in using lower NCO ranks any move to that would need to be tri-service and I can’t see that happening.
It would also make the overlap of cadet and staff ranks worse than it is (unless we removed cadet ranks and just used classification names, as an example, but that is waaaay off topic).
Going back to the OP it is personal preference. The route to NCO is quicker, there is (less) likelihood of being pushed straight into command so there is more time to develop, and it’s more practical / hands on if that is your thing.
Sgt is a good rank to hold to attend courses etc, without the hassle of being an adj/OC.
On the other hand, CFC is perhaps the better option for someone with prior experience, in youth work, management or of course commissioned military service.
For those reasons I see more older joiners go CFC (or happily stick as CIs) and younger ones go NCO, but of course there are honourable exceptions in both cases.
I’m CFC and in the temping category too 
Over 3 years later we still have no officer in charge. So ‘temping’ is stretching it. I backed out of the OC role because I was pooped on and not supported by the organisation and ‘owner’ of our SHQ all whist in a relatively high pressure job.
Why does the ATC seem to find it such a problem finding people whi want to commission? In my view, Probably because they find themselves strongarmed into running things when not at all ready.
This, and actually running a unit is not a vast amount of fun.
As this was a bit before my time - what actually was the problem?
I’m not aware of any current plans to review the use of NCO ranks.
Some interesting comments and views across this thread!
I’ve also heard this. There’s a PSI rank, similar to our white tab sgts, which used to come in between PI and SI: so I guess they’ve simplified things a bit.
Back in my day you could go straight from PI to AUO. I assume there’s still a route for DE officers: maybe they just go straight in as AUOs now?
Pretty much boiled down to WOs only recently out of nappies not knowing what they’re doing, side effect of which was them sharing a mess and a rank with regulars who joined at the same time our WOs were born to earn that rank.
That could be called a simplification, but don’t think it could be called hugely inaccurate.