In Bader, it is possible to assign roles to anyone, we all know that.
If a Sqn’s Bader SNCO account is assigned to a RAFAC WO, the display name is
Bloggs, Joe WO
If assigned to a CWO (and yes, this does happen), the display name is
Bloggs, Joe CWO
but, no other SNCO ranks differentiate between cdt and RAFAC
Bloggs, Joe FS
is displayed whether the role is given to a RAFAC FS or a Cdt FS (I know units where the adj role is assigned to a 19 yr old staff cdt FS - this is no judgement on whether that’s a good idea or not)
Would it be more useful / relevant to know if a role is being held by a cdt rank?
Bloggs, Joe CFS
for example, to align with CWO convention?
Is this an oversight? Should ranks be differentiated? Pros / cons?
if i am emailing such an account it is because i want the person behind the role to action it - be it read it and share with cadets, follow instructions (eg upload names to SMS), i won’t care if they are a 19 yr old FS, a 39 year of CFAV FS or a 69 year old CI (in the case of Adj or Trg account more than the suggested SNCO).
that person has been appointed the email account by the unit OC - from my position i can only trust that judgement and pass on the information or answer their question.
FS Bloggs, Thank you for the suggestion our two units get together to combine our drill practice.
Having considered the dates you suggest I leave comment of the level of interest against these below…
would it matter if the receipient was a Cadet or Staff member in that example (or any??)
should WO Rogers first be questioning their identity?
FS Bloggs,
who are you? Rumour has it your a Cdt FS not a CFAV FS - is this true? Perhaps you should wind your neck and check with your CO before suggesting cooperation with a another unit. There are no prizes for trying to be clever you know
I wait to hear from your CO directly until I consider the dates suggested below
If there was differentiation, there is the real risk that some people who are overly full of their self-importance as a CFAV would treat them differently (I mean, some even treat CIs differently…)
This is because it takes the rank from SMS and you’ll see that cadet ranks in SMS are: “Cpl” “Sgt”, “FS”, "CWO… Not “Cdt Cpl”, “Cdt Sgt”, &c
Another irritating quirk is that if you have selected “Chairperson”, “Treasurer”, &c from the “rank” menu for your committee then their email name becomes “Bloggs, Joseph Chairperson (RAFAC-blah-1234-Chairman)”, "Doe, Jane Treasurer (RAFAC-blah-1234-Treasurer)…
Thus I have listed the ‘rank’ of my CivCom in SMS as “Mrs”, “Mr”, &c as appropriate.
Well, that really depends on whether they want a cadet rank to officially be “Cadet Corporal” or “Corporal”…
It’s not an oversight in the email system, but it could be an oversight in the SMS options.
Unfortunately it’s never been carried over definitively to a modern publication and bad habits from when we we had CWO & AWO have become widespread, but it used to be very clear in the old ACP31 that you didn’t include the Cadet bit in any Cadet rank when talking to them. (And to my knowledge there is no replacement document that gives a clear change to this).
I have to admit that this seems to be something that should be a problem.
If it’s a listing surely staff and cadets are listed separately and then there is always the (ATC) to denote adult SNCOs. If anyone is going to get confused, then giving them a row of shovels and saying take your pick, would confound them.
Cadet Warrant Officers I refer as I was referred as either “Warrant” or occasionally “Cadet Warrant”, on the basis that you were unlikely to refer to an adult Warrant Officer as ‘Warrant’, the very least would be Mr, Mrs, Miss
Not any more. The ranks are now “Sergeant” “Flight Sergeant” and “Warrant Officer” – not “Sergeant (ATC)”, &c – and have been since we all became RAFAC.
That’s as may be but I use it for clarity if required and no one has mentioned it.
But I have never referred to a cadet of rank with the prefix cadet verbally or in writing.
But you are using it incorrectly which provides the exact opposite of clarity.
We really need to educate people, it’s a small thing but really GMGs given some of these habits are over 15 years old.
Correct options
Cdt Cpl J Bloggs
Cdt Sgt J Bloggs
Cdt FS J Bloggs
CWO J Bloggs
The Cdt/C is only used in writing and not verbally.
Sgt J Bloggs RAFAC
FS J Bloggs RAFAC
WO J Bloggs RAFAC
APO J Bloggs RAFAC
Plt Off J Bloggs RAFAC
Fg Off J Bloggs RAFAC
Flt Lt J Bloggs RAFAC
Sqn Ldr J Bloggs RAFAC
Wg Cdr J Bloggs RAFAC
Note that the post nominal of RAFAC is used for all uniformed CFAV, with the exception of Service Instructors.
Incorrect Options
F/S
Flt Sg
FO
SL
S/L
Any use of (ATC)
ASgt
A/Sgt
AFS
AWO
Any use of VR(T) for current officers, with the exception of those who are part of 2FTS/6FTS.
We have APO for Acting Pilot Officer, do we have anything for Acting Sergeants who hold this “rank” until completion of SSIC?
Also should they become Sgts at the end of the course or on the combined completion of their 12 month probation AND the course? For Officers following OIC they are badges as Plt Off but this isn’t processed by HQAC until the 12 month point, and thus under the latest IBN won’t be updated on SMS until that point by WHQ staff.
It does feel that the acting ranks and probationary periods across all streams need some further thought given the limitations people are under for off sqn activity
How many people really care?
Not many I’d wager. There is probably some FTRS gnome tucked away in a room in HQAC somewhere who’s getting paid a small fortune who does, but out in the air, I’m not sure people do on a wide enough scale.
If this was real where it might have some bearing then perhaps, but in a hobby environment not so. It’ll eventually fall into place, by which time someone somewhere will have come up with something else.
It’s not been a major issue in conversations at any point. As long as you don’t get called late for breakfast, does it matter.
