Random observation about ranks in Bader / O365

There are still some RAF VR(T) CFAV.

Some of them hold supernumerary posts at RAFAC squadrons.

That was certainly the case when we were commissioned into the RAFVR that the highest substantive rank was Fg Off.

With the CFC it remains true that ranks above Fg Off are only held while you are doing a role that carries that rank.

We use APO/Acting Sgt to indicate those who are “under training” with a physical indicator on their rank slide, so I consider these to be different ranks due to the different insignia.

At the end of the day, we are all acting at being a rank, because it’s not our job.

@109115 I’ve edited my original post.

1 Like

Indeed, it was more a rhetorical question - it just doesn’t make entire sense to omit the acting for some and not others. But realistically, tiny problem.

I beg your pardon…:rofl:

2 Likes

There is a pretty high profile Wg Cdr, who posts on Teams a lot, who used this when he was a Sqn Ldr (and I think still uses it when referring to other Sqn Ldrs)

Some of those are historically correct, so older members of staff may well continue to use them as they always have.

2 Likes

Certainly when I was a cdt, Flt Sgt was the standard abbreviation - it took me a long time as staff to switch to FS! I still don’t understand why Flt Lt hasn’t changed to FL tho…

That’s because Acting Pilot Officer is a rank in it’s own right whereas Acting Flight Lieutenant is the rank of Flt Lt held on an acting basis

The distinction is “acting” as a probationary rank-holder, or “acting” as in holding a post of that level.

In the same way I sometimes promote cadets to A/Cpl (I guess that should be A/Cdt Cpl!) for a probationary period if I need a flight i/c but I’m not sure who - rather than a formal board I’d prefer to see them actually manage a flight for a term.

Technically, shouldn’t that be ‘Cdt A/Cpl’, as they’re already a substantive cadet, just not a substantive corporal…?

1 Like

or A/(Cdt Cpl)?

you have formal boards for promotion to Cpl? :exploding_head:

We do also. Need to ensure they are able to articulate basic understanding aswell coupled with feedback from observations whilst on unit

We board them as well. Less is expected of them at that level than at a board for Sgt or FS, but it’s good practice for them in interviewing - a useful skill for life - and it gives an opportunity to see another facet of them.
Most often the board confirms what we had already learned from observation but sometimes you find out new information.

Being a substantive cadet shouldn’t have anything to do with the abbreviation. If someone is promoted to acting Sergeant their rank doesn’t become “Cpl A/Sgt” because they’re already a substantive corporal.

We have a paper application, drill & deportment assessment followed by an interview panel.

Given that the Army list is right for CCF (Army) ranks in Westminster, it is probably more likely they asked HQAC for a list of RAFAC ranks and then just didn’t bother checking what was sent.

With my HQ volunteer hat on - if there is a significant problem with the use of cadet ranks on the Bader platform, that issue should be identified through a service desk request so it can be reviewed properly. If that request included a defacto correct list of ranks and abbreviations, that would be helpful.

After that, we would engage with TG to ask them to ratify the list and then we would implement them against that requirement.

The requirement sounds like:

As a Bader User
I need to quickly identify if I am speaking to a cadet or CFAV when looking at their rank in the address alias
So I can ensure I address people properly

Bear in mind that (1) it was never really anticipated that cadets would be allocated to Bader Accounts (2) it wasn’t designed with them in mind. However, over time, that has changed and I agree that it does need to be looked at again. We have just finished renaming most of the HQ posts against the new naming conventions so this is timely.

1 Like

or, as @steve679 said, maybe it’s better that people don’t know so that’s there no (un)conscious bias going on… if an OC has determined that a Staff Cdt is able to hold that position, should anyone else be given the opportunity to judge?

To add another facet for consideration… Nominal rolls will also only list “Cpl”, “Sgt”, &c.
I had an instance once where a number of nominal rolls were all pulled together and a regular Cpl service instructor was allocated a bed in the cadet block. The person allocating hadn’t spotted that this “Cpl” wasn’t a “Cdt Cpl”.
Probably a rare occurrence, but perhaps properly recording their ranks as Cdt ranks would be of benefit in such situations.

3 Likes

No - precisely that I don’t but I know many ATC units do. I don’t board for any promotions below heads of section (RN/Army/RAF) and Head of Corps. I want to see them in action, not in some artificial process.

3 Likes