Sir Chris Hoy - RAFVT(T)?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
401

It is a mistake basing decisions on whether an individual will fit in amongst the RAF.

We should certainly strive to improve standards through training and selection, but it should be done with our own organisation and our own professionalism in mind. People need to work well in the cadet forces, not in the regulars and if that puts some regular noses out of joint they really should just zip it and deal with it.

I hate to say it, but from what has been said in some of the lengthy messages above it does look like the ACF are going in the right direction. A lot of effort is being expended to pull us more tightly into an organisation that doesn’t understand us and can’t cope with our requirements.

402

I agree with that.
But I still think that there should be more to promotion than basically saying "Well done! You’ve given the same level of service as everyone else… here have FS!"
I’m not saying that FS and WO (ATC) should be promoted based upon the criteria of the RAF, but for our own people at those ranks some of the same leadership and bearing should be visible if we want to maintain any credibility and professionalism.

I mentioned the Sea Cadets…
As best I understand it, for their staff to be promoted to CPO (equivalent to FS) they need to have completed all the minimum criteria - 6 years at PO; attained a specialization as an instructor (drill, weapons, sailing, etc); attend a promotion course; boarded; and stand out above their peers.
CPO is the standard top rank, promotion to WO is to fill posts (again, as best I understand), and so those gaining it need to be top.
You might be a good Petty Officer, you might put in lots of time, but unless there’s something particularly special about you, you might not make Chief.
As a result of that approach to promotion the SCC CPOs that I’ve seen all come across as very professional, knowledgeable, and you might mistake them for being other than ‘cadet instructors’.
They are very clearly leaders in their field.

I can’t say the same for all the FS and WO (ATC) that I’ve met. Whilst there are standout people of course, in general our SNCOs just seem to be a mixed bag with very little difference between ranks.

There’s no reason we couldn’t achieve the same standards in the ATC, it will just take a shift in approach.

And why shouldn’t we?
There’s no ‘need’ for someone to be promoted to FS just because they put the time in.
How many VR(T) officers make Sqn Ldr, or Wg Cdr? Very few compared to Fg Off and Flt Lt.
Why shouldn’t we have a system which considers Sgt to be the standard rank and only promotes above that those few who stand out?

403

I think we need to remember some WOs are still the old school type, who have always been WOs.

404

Indeed, and some of them are very good, some of them are rubbish, and most are somewhere in the middle.
Introducing Sgt and FS was a great opportunity to set in motion a process that ensures that from then on our WO were top notch.
It was an opportunity wasted because 10 years on we’re promoting people who in some cases are no better now than they were as new Sgts.

405

Corrected that for you.

406

is that not part of the OC/WWO and Wg Cdrs approval/interview process??

if the CO doesnt feel worthy of promotion then not recommended, much like the WWO. if the Wg Cdr isnt impressed then that offers a third filter.
arguably (and i think it is your point) it should be harder to be eligible…
but look at our own backyards…how many Cdts are “eligible” by time served, experience and activities/events attended. on some Sqns those (potential) NCOs will mark time, wait for maturity, attitudes or recognition to become apparent, others they will get promoted on the first chance…
the same is happening with the Adults NCOs. some are being held back, (i know a Sgt who has served 6+ yrs without a sniff of promotion and two others who havent recieved recommendation from OC or WWO) while others are beign put forward straight away.

the argument for promoting sooner could be a moral issue. in some Wings desperate for Staff can they afford to hold staff back without the fear they will walk?

and if we DO hold Staff back is that not against the grain of “development” that is present in the Corps? Ok i confess it is primarily regarding the Cadet development but doesnt mean we should ignore Staff development. indeed a qualification should be held to be eligiable (which in my opinion needs looking at. FAAW, Heartstart or ARD and similar “low level” quals aren’t worthy…they only assist events rather than permit them to occur and a “senior” qual like BEL/ML, SAAI/RCO, CWLA/SPA etc)
of course there will always be some Staff who simple will never “fit” the expectations but very few will want to be part of the organisation where clear development and progress is laid out (promotion) and not want to engage in it.
[devils advocate] every Officer is expected to be a Flt Lt/to be running a Sqn at some point (or appears to be the expectation in our Wing) so why not have the same expectation with SNCOs aiming for WO??

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20197] [quote=“Steve679” post=20197]
…i will predict this is a Wing issue as in difference in expected Standards on Wings rather than a fault with the system…we get differences in Cadet NCOs between neighbouring Squadrons so it would be only expected to see the same difference in Standards of Staff between Wings[/quote]
Again, I agree. This is exactly why I think we need to set a higher standard and somehow ensure that it’s applied across the whole Corps. It’s going to be difficult until peoples mindset changes.
[/quote]

could this be covered at the beginning of the process via OASC? if that filters the right people starting at the bottom would that not assist the work at the top of the NCO ladder?

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20199]
personally don’t feel that promotion should be given out for doing a ‘good’ job - lots of people are doing a good job; it should be given for doing an ‘excellent’ job, far better than everyone else…[/quote]

i do agree but how do we measure this?
on Sqn it is easy to determine between Cadets, Cpl Jones is easily compared against Cpl Smith…
but between two Sgt (ATC) on different Squadrons? or between 5 Sgts across the Wing?
Each Sqn is vastly different, the three local to us all have a different building, some are shared with the ACF others aren’t, some have an air rifle range, some have spare for drill others dont have room for Staff cars, some parade and average of 30-40, others 15-20…as such to compare Sgts or FS across the Wing to find the “the top class” Staff for promotion is difficult based on the fact it isnt apples and apples that are being compared.

the obvious suggestion would be a comparison at a Wing level, who on camp worked the hardest, who at Wing Field Day did more, who did the most at Athletics? but even then these are annual events, and typically tasks are assigned to the person and not the rank…(and if it is by rank it would be assigned to a higher rank…) and would require all eligible Staff to be present at the same time.

arguably it could be the reverse. someone working hard on a Wing level (does a lot for shooting, is the Wing Netball/rugby coach, coordinates alot of the NCO courses) but less so on unit and so difficult to get the balance right where there are two roles to the position, unit vs Wing involvement.

i am not saying it is right or wrong but it isnt as black and white as it is with Cadet promotions…

407

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20199]
There’s no ‘need’ for someone to be promoted to FS just because they put the time in.
How many VR(T) officers make Sqn Ldr, or Wg Cdr? Very few compared to Fg Off and Flt Lt.
Why shouldn’t we have a system which considers Sgt to be the standard rank and only promotes above that those few who stand out?[/quote]

i know exactly what you are saying and completely agree.

if we look at the ranks as the following
Sgt = Plt Off
FS= Fg Off
WO = Flt Lt

Sgts (and Plt Offs) are those new to uniform, finding their feet and gonig about gaining quals, training and experience

FSs (and Fg Offs) are those who have been in post sometime, they have useless skills and quals to utilise and have experience and knowledge in either most or specialist (or both) areas

WOs and (flt Lts) are those who have reached the top of their game, they have worked they way up through the ranks completing a variety of tasks and roles along the way. their experience is broad as is their knowledge

as such would argue FS should be seen as the majority SNCO rank, but like Fg off is for Officers…those below (Sgts) are “in training” those above (WOs) are the senior managers

408

That’s the point - it’s not quite equal in that way.

Remember that WO is the highest OR - Flt Lt isn’t the top!

I’d see it as:

Plt Off/Fg Off = Sgt
Flt Lt = FS
Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr = WO

I’d expect to find the first two levels on unit, with more of the first and with one of the second level as the top on that unit (eg Flt Lt as OC and FS as Sqn SNCO)

Level three should be wing or above (or very large squadron) only IMO.

409

During my initial RAF training it was pointed out several times by the training team and training WO that in Fact the highest Rank in the Royal Air Force is Warrant Officer this is indeed something that has been workedhard for and had to be earned, on the other hand it was pointed out that An officer holds an commission which in fact is an appointment handed out by the head of state.

410

That sounds very much like reasoning originating from an NCO!

411

Yeah, and a load of rubbish too.

412

Take it from another ex-RAF bod that your instructors were talking a load of penis.

When [I]enlisted[/I] in the [I]ranks[/I], one is promoted to another [I]rank[/I], senior to the one you that you have just held.

One is [I]appointed[/I] to a commission which has its own inherent [I]rank structure[/I], which is no different to the OR system. The commissioning scroll states that: [I]we Appoint you to be an Officer in our Royal Air Force (Royal Auxiliary Air Force / Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve). You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of … or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to.[/I]

My bold.

So, in essence, the highest rank attainable in the RAF is Marshal of the Royal Air Force, with Air Chief Marshal being the senior ‘day-to-day’ rank, not as they might have you believe, Warrant Officer.

So to any WO’s who may be reading this, I wouldn’t get too excited if I were you.

413

Although true that WO is the highest ATC rank.

414

Yes, and FS is the highest NCO rank. Correct, but not really helpful.

I mean Cdt Cpl is technically the highest cadet JNCO rank, but that doesn’t really mean much.

[quote=“thetopcat69” post=20221]During my initial RAF training it was pointed out several times by the training team and training WO that in Fact the highest Rank in the Royal Air Force is Warrant Officer this is indeed something that has been workedhard for and had to be earned, on the other hand it was pointed out that An officer holds an commission which in fact is an appointment handed out by the head of state.[/quote]And did said WO ever express this opinion to the chief of the air staff I wonder?

415

[quote=“MattB” post=20239]Yes, and FS is the highest NCO rank. Correct, but not really helpful.

I mean Cdt Cpl is technically the highest cadet JNCO rank, but that doesn’t really mean much.

This was Loooong time ago and I forget Said WO’s Name only remember he has Old and Bold and I was in at the time in Aewe of the fact he was weaaring those dreaded Mudguards so of Course I believed him WHo wouldnt???.. I never actualy said in my post howver that it was true just that that was what I was told back then…

416

…Does it really matter?

If the CFAV improves the chances of a cadet getting the edge in the real world then does it matter what badge they wear?

We are going to regulate the ACO out of existence if too many hoops are shoved in the way.

I see more and more sqns run by NCOs simply because getting a ‘commission’ is so damned difficult. They introduced all these extra hoops for VRTs - has it improved things? I say no.

I would say that the best uniformed staff would be people over the age of 30 with life experience. I am not convinced that those who have been cadets, gone straight to uniform make the best staff. they have too narrow life experience.

I also think that all these suggestions that the staff need loads of training will just put many people off.

…We will be taken over by sad single six toed banjo playing clones with no life outside of the ACO.

For those who are young enough…you may now spit out the dummy, or chuck toys from the pram :wink:

417

Just found this little gem of a paper:

Royal Air Force Reserve & Auxiliary Forces (RAF Historical Society), 2003.

Within which, is this excellent essay (amongst many!) - The RAFVR 1936-39, Dr Tony Mansell on p.27

[quote]Dr Tony Mansell wrote:

Entry was to be in the rank of AC2, with promotion to sergeant on the following day. Commissions were to be available to all who subsequently proved their worth, and on entry for some with appropriate aptitudes and previous flying experience, such as current and former UAS or RAFO members. p.31

…there are tales which relate how regular sergeants, who had spent years attaining that rank, were not exactly pleased to see men who had walked in off the streets wearing three stripes, and some first-hand accounts of frosty receptions given to RAFVR sergeants and officers when they were posted in to some AAF and RAF squadrons on the outbreak of war. p.32[/quote]

So …there is historical precedent for Direct Entry RAFVR SNCOs! …coupled with “a warning from history” - in relation to our previous discussions - to boot.

Interesting…

Cheers
BTI

418

[quote=“bti” post=20288]Just found this little gem of a paper:

Royal Air Force Reserves & Auxiliary Forces (RAF Historical Society), 2003.[/quote]

Well-done on finding an on-line verion of this, bti. I’ve a printed first edition of the original published version (ISBN 0-9530345-1-8 ), it is an excellent source of useful information.

It is absolutely-correct that the pre-WW2 RAFVR was intended, primarily, to attract non-commissioned personnel.

During WW2 it became the formation into which the vast majority of men were called up to serve (of both commissioned and Other Ranks status) when conscripted for wartime Air Force Service. In so doing they served alongside Officers and Men of the regular Royal Air Force, the mobilised Auxiliary Air Force, and Officers and Women of the WAAF.

And the ‘historical precedent for Direct Entry RAFVR SNCOs’ is of course much-more recent than WW2…up until 1997, a significant proportion of what are now the 7000-series “VR” RAuxAF squadrons were manned by RAFVR SNCOs. I know that for absolutely certain, as I served alongside them, as a member of the RAuxAF.

wilf_san

ps

419

wilf_san wrote:

Was RAFVR DE SNCO service as a civilian entrant possible post-war up to 1997? (genuine question!) …or were those VR SNCOs you served with promoted from the ranks within the VR?

EDIT:- I’m referring to the RAFVR(GD) here, rather than other branches (although I’m not aware of SNCOs serving in either the UAS or CC branches)

Cheers
BTI

420

[quote=“bti” post=20295]

Was RAFVR DE SNCO service as a civilian entrant possible post-war up to 1997? (genuine question!) …or were those VR SNCOs you served with promoted from the ranks within the VR?[/quote]

No, when civilians enlisted directly into the pre-merger VR(GD) (eg 7010 Flt RAFVR, now 7010 (VR) Sqn RAuxAF), the majority were attested as airmen and airwomen in the rank of Aircraftman/woman, with a very-small minority engaged as DE Officers (I’m virtually certain there were never any OCdts VR(GD), I think they went in as A/Plt Offs). The VR ORs then, after BRT/GST/specialist trade training, appeared to then go from SAC/SACW to A/Sgt, prior to being allowed out on proper det. I certainly never saw a Cpl VR, ever, but maybe they did exist (though I doubt it).

On consideration, it was only towards the end of the WARFs (the war appointable reserve flights) still being VR and not yet converted to RAuxAF that I saw my first RAFVR FSs and WOs. They were extremely rare creatures. I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that it was fairly unusual for RAFVR(GD) SNCOs to ‘go branch’ and take a commission, in that they seemed happy/proud to remain doing their task with non-commissioned status. The majority of VR(GD) Offrs I ever met appeared to be ex-regular, but I do know that there were a tiny fraction lurking that were ex-VRT (such as Sqn Ldr Drucker), a totally-different situation than for the RAuxAF, back at that time, where VRT Officers wanting to go RAuxAF were required to relinquish their commissioned status completely, and join as an OR, and then move up the establishment as/when/if opportunities arose.

[quote=“bti”]EDIT:- I’m referring to the RAFVR(GD) here, rather than other branches (although I’m not aware of SNCOs serving in either the UAS or CC branches)[/quote] Certainly no SNCOs in the RAFVR(UAS), but clearly, as ever, plenty of uncommissioned Officer Cadets and a select cadre of APOs (then as now). As far as RAFVR(CC) - I’m not so sure, obviously SAvOs/AVOs etc would’ve all been commissioned status, but perhaps in the original MMU, they might’ve had ORs, some of whom would’ve been SNCOs (this of course before the VR(CC) went RAFR…does anyone know if the current MMU has Other Ranks serving, alongside Offrs?).


(I suspect that any appointments within the ACO that would’ve been RAFR(CC) are now actually being made as RAFVR(T)…note that this Gazette entry also supports/initiates references to the confusing/circular ‘re-naming’ of the AFR into being called the RAFR, despite this not being specifically directed by RFA96)

But, thinking back to VR(GD) SNCOs…it’s just struck me that they could of course have been acting in rank, and not substantive (so, perhaps Cpls or even SACs).

And there is (was?) another important aspect to remember, and that’s seniority between the Air Forces.

An RAF Officer (or SNCO, or OR) of the same rank as an RAuxAF Officer is senior to that Officer (or SNCO, or OR); and, in turn an RAuxAF Officer (or SNCO, or OR) of the same rank as an RAFVR Officer is senior to that Officer (or SNCO or OR). It’s slightly more complicated than that (or it was, pre-97/ still is?) but that’s about the gist of it (aside from RAF ResO/ResA)

Wonder if I’ve still got some old relevant QRs…

wilf_san