Seen this thread on ASTRA: Remove substantive rank cap of fg off
It says it’s been recommended to proceed and “Progress to RAFAC Change Board”.
Has anyone heard anything since? I think it was something put in last year
I think that the individual has put forward a fair case, so let’s see what happens.
1 Like
It’s a shame that the ASTRA Ideas page hasn’t been looked at since August 2024, at least going by when someone at HQ last updated an idea status.
1 Like
I submitted that.
I haven’t heard anything back on it beyond what you see there, though I don’t recall any expectation that I’d be kept appraised.
1 Like
Might be worth a follow-up - I was going to add a comment asking for an update, but it said I don’t have edit access…
Can’t do it via those means, but I’ll float a Q.
I’m not convinced anything on there has been done, other than things that were already actively being worked on before that dashboard was created.
i have to agree with the reasoning.
it does appear to “value the (commissioned) volunteer” without any cost or input save a change in the wording of a policy.
yet without it, implies that the volunteer is not valued by not offering them the title fitting of their role, responsibility, skills, knowledge and ability.
Exactly this.
I fundamentally disagree with the removal of the cap as the rank indicates the level of responsibility someone has volunteered for.
Previously under the VRT it was almost unheard of for a flt lt to revert to flying officer where now it is the norm & I think we are better for it.
Substantive means that you can’t revert someone to a previous rank without disciplinary action but in a volunteer organisation that’s exactly what we need & what use to happen with the flt lt unpaid who has clearly lost interest & we’re just coasting.
It also reminds everyone that no one is higher than a flying officer so we must remember we are dealing with other volunteers not a rank.
If we did remove the cap this would put us out of step with the other cadet forces ( I know of an ACF Lt who has gone straight to lt col, & a former coy co (major) who is reverting back to Lt at the end of her tour as CO)
The rank doesn’t give you legitimacy or effective influence in the air cadets - it’s what you deliver & how you work with others.
2 Likes
I think you’re misunderstanding, or perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
The point wasn’t that people shouldn’t hold the rank of their appointment (someone jumping around FTRS contracts will hold the rank for their current role), it’s that the rank they’re given shouldn’t be “acting”.
Acting implies temporary and a stop gap. A wing commander running a wing for 4 years isn’t a stop gap — they’re doing a very difficult and valuable volunteer management role and our organisation recognises that with the award of a rank, but then feels the need to say “oh but you’re not actually that rank, we couldn’t possibly actually give you that rank…”
Imagine if we conveyed that to our cadets…
If they’re doing the role, they should hold that rank as a substantive promotion, unless they’re awaiting some sort of qualification or assessment.
Again, the lunacy is that we let someone keep it as a retired rank but not as a substantive rank…
5 Likes
I think I maybe misunderstanding you, but due the history when this has been raised before.
In the past people have tried to hold on to rank as a means to cling to status or that if they are changed role they must be given a role appropriate to their rank rather than a rank appropriate to their role. The substantive at Fg Off was a way to avoid this & was a useful legal fiction
I think it comes down to whether substantive is interpreted as “permanent” rank or as baseline rank.
Id argue if thats brought in WO should commission as Flt Lt (if theyve had too many beers and decided to that) that would align to the RAF.
Even know of a current serving WO whos direct commission as a Sqn Ldr
3 Likes
I do understand the conflict people have felt.
Rank does also align generally with with experience, and so suddenly dropping to the lowest rank conveys, particularly to our sister and parent service colleagues, that we’re very inexperienced.
That’s why I favour not dropping below flt lt or sgt once you’ve done the time and amassed that experience. I appreciate sgt is currently the lowest for CFAV, but I won’t go there lest I earn another klaxon… 
But that is separate to the submission. That was purely about actually awarding substantive rank to people when they’re doing that job.
St John Ambulance have just overhauled their structure to make sure rank aligns to responsibilities and it’s not simply a case of someone working nationally or regionally having a higher rank than someone of similar impact who happens to be local. No focus on calling them acting ranks though.
Mine was Flt Lt and then Sqn Ldr within a couple of years
1 Like
Yeah you were lucky 
that aint ever happening again unless policy changes
I was Thinking about how weird our Acting/ substantive system is today,
Eg, Acting Wg Cdr (Substantive Fg Off) meets a Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr
Who salutes who? Who’s more Senior?
QRs only deal with acting as 1 rank above as anything else is absurdity in the forces
But we’re not the Forces so?
Watch out though. IIRC your membership fee for the RAF Club is linked to your substantive rank. This is going to increase membership costs for higher ranked people.
But on a more serious note I’m in agreement with this.
2 Likes
I’m a firm fence sitter, I don’t understand why it’s and issue and also don’t understand why it should change.
In the regular (and reserve) military substantive rank is linked to authority (authorising Eng defects, material accounting etc), disciplinary powers etc and pensions.
Does it really change anything for the RAFAC?
I disagree with removing the substantive rank cap altogether, for reasons outlined above. There’s no point keeping thousands of Wg Cdr’s and Sqn Ldr’s when they’re out of the relevant posts. It would just be silly, and akin to how CAP do things in the states.
However, I do believe that our max substantive should be Flt Lt rather than Fg Off, as in almost every case for the regulars and reservists a Fg Off is still an officer under training.
Bring back Flt Lt (Unpaid) time served, if an officer isn’t good enough for OF2 by the time they’ve got their CFM then we have far bigger issues to deal with.
Agree with @AlexCorbin that under this system a WO should probably commission at Flt Lt, or Fg Off with accelerated promotion to Flt Lt.
None of this dramatically changes how we teach our cadets, deliver activities or anything like that. But it would make our officers feel more valued, and ensure those that have been kicking around for donkeys years aren’t mistaken as “trainees”…
2 Likes