We obviously hope that the two are in no way related…
5 Likes
Tee hee, no, zero association. 
1 Like
Why not have the same selection for the two branches of the RAFAC; ATC and CCF (RAF).
2 Likes
If you read above I say I would like that. And other than teachers in the CCF who are often doing it as ordered by the headteacher we do have the same system(or at least should according to the regulations).
But that post was in response to my point about us having different commissions in that we are not commissioned into the RAFAC but unlike the VR days where both branches were commissioned into the same organisation the scroll states that you are commissioned into the ATC or the CCF (RAF) and therefore you can justify some difference in process, especially when a CCF officer who didn’t do OASC wants to transfer to the ATC they need to still do it, even if a time served Wing Commander. Someone commented it’s the same commission as a CFC one so we should be the same - by that logic we should have a unified CFC selection process.
TBH I think there is merit in having one selection process, or at least a shared facility. The cost savings alone would be great by not duplicating work across the services.
And combining would allow candidates to pass through Westbury/Sandhurst, Cranwell or HMS Sultan cutting down on travel (granted somewhere to board north of Sleaford would be useful too)
1 Like
ACP 20 - PI 206 Accelerated Promotion for ATC CFAV Appointed to Command a Sqn, DF Or VGS
This does mean that the matrix does apply for Flt Lt WSO if not already a Flt Lt at appointment.
So many Sqn Ldr wing posts. I don’t think half the appointments in our wing hold the rank.
It’s all at the whim of your Wing Commander, they choose the design of their Wing and then can promote you to the rank in the book but don’t have to. (My Wing Commander only has Sector Commanders as Squadron Leaders, all the rest of the Wing Staff work to a Sector Commander as Flt Lt’s).
1 Like
Many of the established (paid) Wing Staff roles are nominally at Sqn Ldr rank but caveatted in ACP20 as rank ranging so anyone from CI upwards can technically fill the role.
MB
18 Sqn Ldrs in one wing would be far far far to many.
Where in ACP 20 does it say this? Does the same area also talk about SNCOs in these posts, and if that is okay, or if it is frowned upon? I seem to always here a load of rubbish that a WO shouldn’t be doing X as it’s an officer role…
Very first sentence in my attachment Annex D to PI No 101 “The following (rank-ranging) paid posts are established on Wings.”
MB
I see, so ‘rank ranging’ meaning anyone at any rank can do it? That seems a bit odd though as under the same idea that would mean a Sgt could apply for OC Wg or Dep OC Wg, as they are in the same ‘rank ranging’ list?
That’s my interpretation but happy to be corrected. I have seen both CIs and SNCOs filling some of these Sqn Ldr roles in the past so assumed that was the meaning.
MB
1 Like
I’m not sure either. I read it as there are a range of ranks. (Wg Cdr - Flt Lt in this case). But yes, I’ve seen all ranks in those posts too which is why I was wondering if there was something more concrete about who can apply for what roles as obviously a CI or Sgt can’t apply for OC Wg, but I see no reason why they couldn’t be Wg Sports Officer or Wg Adv Trg Officer!
In the Regulars a rank ranged post would state what range is accepted e.g. Fg Off - Flt Lt is very common. The way the extract above is written, any rank could fill any of those roles, so it needs a slight reword. OC Wing should always be a Wg Cdr surely! The principle is good though.
1 Like
Well most applicants would be Sqn Ldr’s and would be promoted upon appointment wouldn’t they.
Of course, that’s what everyone would expect, but the policy doesn’t say that. I’m just being picky though.
More seriously, I think most Wg roles should have a minimum rank to recognise the level of responsibility e.g. a Sgt as WATTO doesn’t seem fair to that individual as it’s a significant responsibility
1 Like
This is what I was getting at! 
I don’t see the issue to be honest. Also see no issue if it was a CI. If they are the most qualified in the wing, and put in the time, then no issue. Although if it was a CI putting in that much time and effort, I don’t see why they couldn’t be in uniform. Role is more important than rank imo.
1 Like
If they are “Paid Posts” as a CI I wonder if you could attract some VA…
1 Like
Absolutely not. I’m fairly sure it means that you can get paid at up to that rank, where as there are some people who are Flt Lts or Sqn Ldrs who only get the Fg Off rate of pay.
To add to this, I just checked and it is specifically excluded. ACP 300 No 308 1.d. “CIs and CGIs are specifically excluded from receiving VA”