I agree, in theory you shouldn’t be going to Camp before you do your course anyway.
1 Like
Could easily say as a Cpl you can’t go to camp which would solve the messing issue. Use the time as a JNCO to develop within the role and get used to life in the ACO as a uniformed member of staff.
2 Likes
I’ve lost count of the number of camps I’ve done (over 20) and only one station I’ve been to has been tented, and I know of one other station which I haven’t been to which was tented…
Although, the “can’t stay in the Sgts Mess” angle should be moot anyway since nobody is supposed to be attending camp until they’ve passed SSIC.
Aside… I’ve never seen the point of introducing Corporal as a CFAV rank. I’m not sure what it achieves. Acting Sergeant seems to fill the role just fine, and doesn’t present any accommodation and messing considerations for the rare occasions when a pre-SSIC SNCO is authorised to attend camp.
Most of the ‘reasons for’ that I’ve heard float around the idea that “as a Sgt, there’s an expectation that someone knows what they’re doing”.
Well, as a Cpl there’s an expectation that someone knows what they’re doing too… So it hasn’t changed anything.
I’d argue that a white tab Sgt is far more obviously “in training” than someone wearing Cpl tapes.
If we were to introduce Corporal as a short-term training rank then it must bring some active benefit… I just can’t see one.
The whole idea just feels as though people have latched onto “Oh… We need something for people before they are a substantive Sergeant… Oh - Corporal! Corporal comes before Sergeant!”
3 Likes
I agree with this & it’s often muted along side an alternative to having CIs to get more people in uniform.
This misses out the fact that not only do a lot of volunteers not want to go into uniform (something that the has caused the ACF to struggle in their recruitment), the role of CI is an excellent preparation for a uniform role.
As someone has already said the uniform is just a bit of fancy dress for the benefit of the cadets. An Adult Cpl would just be another costume let alone that none of the other cadet forces have ever considered this a serious or sensible idea - the CCF barely consider adult SNCOs as workable useful roles!
Adult JNCOs? Pull the other one it’s got bells on.
Although, in the interest of discussion… I believe that the Australian Air Force Cadets instructors start at AC…
2 Likes
Except that scenario remains possible, which creates something of an awkward equivalency.
This! People are always surprised when they find out my OC is a Plt Off, but with two Flt Lt. The Plt Off has more time to commit and is better suited to be an OC. At the end of the day, RAFAC is not the RAF, and people can only commit so much time.
6 Likes
Some have still got a substantial potential amount of time in ahead of them.
The potential losses to the staff pool of trying to bump down those who have been fulfilling the “role” of a WO for 20 years, because the organisation moves the goalposts and says “you aren’t in a WO role so you’re now a FS” could easily cripple the organisation.
If you allow grandfathering then you don’t solve the problem.
If going the route of bumping people down, first priority to me would be to review performance, skills, and activity levels at an individual level. If not up to scratch you lose it. Then apply new requirements to upwards movement only.
However, I don’t believe it will solve the pyramid - those who are around for long enough would easily be able to make FS standards, pretty confident we lose more at Sgt level than others and don’t recruit enough to cover that attrition plus promotion plus extra to remain long term sgts.
I don’t see the issue in mirroring Sgt/Plt Off as minimum 2 years, plus matrix, plus displaying actual development/skills/sought-after and valued application and commitment. Just accept that we will likely remain thin at the bottom.
Fg Off/FS expected as the standard and majority.
Flt Lt/WO top of the Sqn tree. Not just role linked, but further dev and application to previous requirements.
We will never achieve a perfect structure. Too stringently barring people from promotion - particularly Sgt-FS - will only cause the loss of even more good people, because Sgts right now can be qual’d up to their eyeballs, matrix completed and then some except for the 4 years, and be incredibly switched on and skilled but will be treated like they’re fresh out of SSIC when they venture off unit. The same would happen with long term sgts with a wealth of skills and experience but not hitting some more convoluted but equally arbitrary matrix or waiting for “a position to open up” and they simply won’t stick that out if that 4 year marker goes and they can’t see the goal.
2 Likes
I don’t believe there is any intention to do that. It really wouldn’t be fair.
See my point above.
Except that the intention is for WO to be top of the organization tree (where it should be), not top of the Sqn tree.
With WO being appointment to specific posts only then FS becomes the defacto top-rank on Sqns and the highest that most volunteers will achieve. In which case it becomes even more important to ensure that promotion to FS is deserving and not just an “everyone gets it” deal.
1 Like
Is the intention to do the same for officers?
Fg Off max on Sqn?
I couldn’t say for certain… I’ve got no idea what, if any, new intentions there are for officers.
Though, if I had to guess… I’d guess that it’ll remain as it is currently - Flt Lt for the OC and all others at Fg Off, (excepting those around who were previously promoted under the old system - just as for SNCOs).
The parity is much more likely to be:
Plt Off / Fg Off → Sgt
Flt Lt → FS
Sqn Ldr → WO
Obviously that would bring up the question of Fg Off on Sqns (not OC) who also fill secondary Wing / Region roles… Could they qualify for Flt Lt based upon their additional Wing / Region responsibilities in the same way that a Sqn Sgt will qualify for FS? - I’d say they should; but that decision is above my grade.
Recently asked that question and was told, locally anyway, your rank is linked to your primary position… so primary on squadron (not oc) Fg Off, even with secondary wing roles, stay a Fg Off.
Which of course is different to that of SNCOs… The primary role - on a Sqn - is Sgt. Anyone wishing to be promoted to FS must be regularly assisting a Wing team at the higher level of responsibility. Thus, it is their secondary duty, in addition to their primary, which earns them the higher rank.
As I say, I think the same should apply for officers.
1 Like
Well technically they could qualify for Sqn Ldr depending on the role.
Yeah, true enough.
There is an irony that when considering promotion for Cadets 9/10 it’s the reverse thought process.
We often default to “are they deserving/NCO material” before (if at all) considering if they have ticked a minimum expectation list.
There is every so often that one Cadet who uses that Sqn NCO expectations lists justification why they deserve Cpl yet are overlooked as they don’t have the “right stuff”…
For Adults however it’s much more box ticking.
I am all for the Sqn ceiling as FS much like Fg Off is for officers.
Fg Off are “default” officer rank and only promoted upon additional responsibility/greater roles
Yet SNCOs don’t get this.
And we find ourselves with early 30 somethings at the top of their three with potentially 30 years volunteering ahead with no where to go
1 Like
I’m relatively new to the organisation, but did serve for 20+ years in the RAF. Having read all of the opinions posted here and the knowledge I have gathered so far in te organisation, that perhaps we should adopt a similar system to the Officers whereby they are all Substantive Fg Off and everything above that is acting rank. I know that the old VR(T) commissions were time served promotions, but nowadays you have to be in a position that affords you the rank (such as Flt Lt - OC) or a respective Wing/Region role. However, if you step down from those positions, you revert to Fg Off. I would suggest that the highest substantive rank you can achieve is a FS, with WO being ‘acting’ like all the Flt Lt’s and above. Appointment to Acting WO would be role specific such as WWO/RWO as well as a person filling a vacant officer role of Flt Lt or above at Wing/Region Level. With the only time you would have a WO on a Sqn would be if they were an OC or were dual-hatted and filling an appropriate wing/region role. This would also require them, like the officers, to revert back down to FS if they are no longer filling an appropriate role.
3 Likes
Just curious as to what the requirements actually are to qualify for Sqn Ldr? Pretty much every role at Wing and Region is listed in ACP20 as ‘rank ranging’ so doesn’t come with automatic right to promotion. In my wing it’s only those who dual hat as a Sector Commanders who are bumped up. Vast majority of our SME roles are filled by Flt Lts or below who remain on Sqn.
Wing Establishment according to ACP20
Sqn Ldr – Dep OC Wg
Sqn Ldr x 3 – Wg Staff Officers (WSOs) (Generic)
Sqn Ldr x 6 - Sector Commanders
Sqn Ldr - Wg Sports Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Shooting Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Trg Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Aviation Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg Adv Trg Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg MCO
Sqn Ldr - Wg H&S Officer
Sqn Ldr - Wg First Aid Trg Officer
Flt Lt – Wg Fieldcraft Officer
Flt Lt – Wg DofE Officer
Flt Lt – Wg Radio Officer
MB
It’s entirely at the discretion of the Wing Commander, they can set there own wing structures and promote upto Sqn Ldr as they see fit.
I still find it strange that the Fieldcraft Officer who authorises high risk to life events is only graded upto Flt Lt while the MCO is upto Sqn Ldr.
6 Likes
Indeed!
Or even why does sports need a Sqn Ldr…