Negative rankslides? Sound expensive, and untraditional, though I see the intention. How can we afford this, yet the cost of gold thread to over-embroider slides with VRT or ATC was going to break the bank.
Simpler solution- just wear white tapes alongside the Sgts slides. Cheap, effective, recognisable, done already, consistent style, works. And in No1 dress, no shoulder eagles worn until completed SSIC (they originally meant passed-out as competent aircraft handler (Gnd), then after that they were used to signify AC2/AC1 having passed BRT pre-trade, so that makes a logical Sgt(ATC)2 (ie baby U/T) and Sgt(ATC)1 (qual) visual identifier.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=3019]
Why Corporal (ATC), why not Aircraftman (ATC)?
Same as SNCO Air Traffic Controllers and Aircrew. Start at AC, become Sergeant when trained.[/quote]
No, they have to be Sgt minimum, exactly as Incubus is saying, but read my above. Non-senior Adult NCOs wouldn’t make any current sense. That aside, please advise if Air Traffic Sgts-in-waiting wear any special unknown rare rank emblem that’s lurking to confuse me, like the NCA Aircrew Cadet badge of a single chevronless eagle (do they get saluted as USAF Colonels ever, I wonder??)
Why do people feel there is a need for a training rank?
A training rank would imply that people are getting training before doing something more “important”. If I understand it correctly, in the regulars people do their trade training before getting the full rank. What “trade” would we be training for?
Surely the “training rank” for adults in the ATC is CI, no uniform, no cost and if you balls it up, so what. Prior to going into uniform as an adult, I feel I did my adult learning as a CI, whether or not this was how it should have been I don’t know. However if this was to be instituted it requires a set of prescribed courses/events put in place by HQAC run by Wings/Regions and not done on an ad hoc basis by Wings and this is where it will fall over. These are completed before even applying for an adult uniformed role. I would apply this to ex-cadets as well. This would suit the modern HQAC mindset as it’s more administrative processes.
In the old days you couldn’t attend an annual camp in uniform unless you had been to ACTC now ATF, this doesn’t tend to happen now, with exceptions to the rule no longer being exceptions to the rule. I remember one of my old COs having to put an extensive argument to Wing for a new WO who hadn’t been to ACTC to go camp and not getting anywhere. Now people say they want to go and off they trot.
After attending ATF recently for SSIC, I came home with similar questions WRT to being probation period.
The course was good seeing the time frame they have with us. The only disappointment was the standard that passed.
One persons was RTU for attitude, but two others where clearly not to standard in all the Ds and knowledge. This took the shine off receiving the course certificate at the end.
A visible training rank or marking may deter the egotistical walts and encourage the wearer to knuckle down if they need improvement before attending ATF.
It’s worrying to think that some uniformed members of staff are clearly not to standard but are in a position to be copied by the cadets they represent.
Same as SNCO Air Traffic Controllers and Aircrew. Start at AC, become Sergeant when trained.[/quote]
No, they have to be Sgt minimum, exactly as Incubus is saying, but read my above. Non-senior Adult NCOs wouldn’t make any current sense. That aside, please advise if Air Traffic Sgts-in-waiting wear any special unknown rare rank emblem that’s lurking to confuse me, like the NCA Aircrew Cadet badge of a single chevronless eagle (do they get saluted as USAF Colonels ever, I wonder??)
wilf_san[/quote]
Sorry, Wilf_San, I’m talking about Cranwell…
As I understand it, Officers to be are Officer Cadets and Commission at the end of the course, Sergeants to be are ACs and promote to Sergeant at the end of the course. I can see a lot of logic in introducing that parity to the ACO.
If it is needed at all, CI is the “training rank”, why faff around with new or invented ranks, when we have somehthing already. What could easily be put in place is that as a CI you must do say a drill and dress course where you cover aspects like drill and uniform (we teach cadets drill and basic uniform upkeep before they get a uniform). They should have already done instruction techniques, how to behave in a mess and ATC and RAF knowledge.
This is assessed and if you come up to scratch, then you can apply. Once they are in uniform you can do consolidation work. I would see it as wise that there is a period of at least 9 months after the appt date before being able to apply for OIC or SSIC, to stop the wham, bam, thank you mam approach many take wrt these courses. This would allow time to get to clothing stores, become acclimatised to wearing the uniform and get more experience. From my WO and OIC those that had got least time invariably faired worse.
I would like to see a CI course run by the ATF. ACTC did run one years and years ago, that was over a weekend.
Personally speaking from several years experience, there have always been people who you look at and wonder how on earth did they get through. But they did and you just get on with your own life. It just seems that on here there are those who are younger, seem to be, are the largest group to criticise, whereas an old soak like me is prepared to accept imperfections, because no one is perfect or ever will be perfect.
It is wise to remember we are all someone’s bette noir.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=3044]As I understand it, Officers to be are Officer Cadets and Commission at the end of the course, [/quote]Actually it seems that they couldn’t make that bit work so they’ll be sticking with being commissioned on appointment as they have at the moment but changing the insignia worn pre-OIC.
Doesn’t mean we couldn’t do it properly for SNCO CFAV (a term which will also require modification if they bring in Cpls and AC )
[quote=“incubus” post=3046][quote=“tango_lima” post=3044]As I understand it, Officers to be are Officer Cadets and Commission at the end of the course, [/quote]Actually it seems that they couldn’t make that bit work so they’ll be sticking with being commissioned on appointment as they have at the moment but changing the insignia worn pre-OIC.
Doesn’t mean we couldn’t do it properly for SNCO CFAV (a term which will also require modification if they bring in Cpls and AC )[/quote]
Good point…ACO officers don’t work the same way… :unsure:
Make them Sergeant, acting Aircraftman? :lol:
I know that the Aussie Air Cadets have staff ranks from Aircraftman upwards…have we got any Aussies around who can explain how it works for them?
I don’t think we need a specific training rank either but there seems to be a desire to identify pre-ATC members of staff and perhaps protect them from Wings who need to put people into positions (applies more to officers than Sgts) so the different rank slide woudl work.
I’m less convinced that we need a different title for them though.
Pre-SSIC Sgts may be destined to wear blue-on-white Sgts slides but they’’ probably still be called Sgt.
Why don’t we have pre-OIC Plt Offs wear their braid on a white backing but call them Pilot Officer (which they are) instead of Officer Cadet?
The general consensus on the SSIC I attended was that there was little to no support from squadron or wing with regards to training and preparing for the role.
“You’ll be fine…it’s a turn up and pass course”
A training rank may encourage a bit more training rather than trying to work it out for yourself.
[quote=“lead balloon” post=3050]The general consensus on the SSIC I attended was that there was little to no support from squadron or wing with regards to training and preparing for the role.
“You’ll be fine…it’s a turn up and pass course”
A training rank may encourage a bit more training rather than trying to work it out for yourself.[/quote]
The issue there is not with the course, or with the system. It’s your wing. In my progression from CI to Plt Off (Which for a multitude of reasons happened across three wings.) I was constantly expected to attend pre-uniform courses, pre-ATF Drill courses, presentation skills courses, mess etiquette lessons etc, etc in all three wings. Even to attend OIC I had to have my Wing Warrant Officer sign off that he was happy for me to attend.
If you passed they were right, if you didn’t they were wrong!
Seriously though, Baldrick highlights the key issue, which is wing-centric. He also outlines (broadly) some of the courses run in this Wing (different to his) but again I suspect there will be some variance wing to wing.
Rather than looking at changing ranks and insignia, why not look closer to home first?
The WWO Signature is a form which ATF sends out to ensure that wings are providing some form of training, however, as far as I am aware there is no set syllabus nationally. (Happy to be corrected.) So wings are free to implement as they see fit.
I don’t think it’s coincidence from the sound of it that the three wings I have been in and Perry’s are all in the same Region either.
Havent seen the form myself (didnt exist in my day!) but my Sgt recently attended ATF and my understanding is that the form simply states that the candidate is suitably competent with basic drill and dress standards to attend ATF.
)