I’ve noticed an increase in staff using full rank names rather than the ‘approved’ short form.
eg ‘FLIGHT SERGEANT’ instead of FS(ATC)
and ’ NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER ’ instead of NCO
Not just NCOs - the VRTs are also at it as well…
Why?
Have I missed something?
Rgds
Confused
FS(ATC)
NCO i/c Something or other…
In what respect?
In signature blocks or when referring to people verbally?
Signature blocks, e-mails etc.
I’ve dug through old emails and letter post and its a fairly recent thing
JSP101 should be your guide for this.
http://www.da.mod.uk/publications/library/miscellaneous/JSP101%20Version%203-1%20June%202010.pdf
It’s a fairly turgid read, but it tells you how to write stuff and the e-version is pretty easy to get around.
Basic rules are if something is going to a military recipient (or civilian in the MoD) ie someone who should know what the shortened ranks are, use the shortened version. If you’re writing to a civvy, use your rank in full. Same goes for positions.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=9981]JSP101 should be your guide for this.
http://www.da.mod.uk/publications/library/miscellaneous/JSP101%20Version%203-1%20June%202010.pdf
It’s a fairly turgid read, but it tells you how to write stuff and the e-version is pretty easy to get around.
Basic rules are if something is going to a military recipient (or civilian in the MoD) ie someone who should know what the shortened ranks are, use the shortened version. If you’re writing to a civvy, use your rank in full. Same goes for positions.[/quote]
Exactly, it is therefore easier to keep it to full version in a saved signature block. Can’t go wrong that way!
[quote=Shadow]
Exactly, it is therefore easier to keep it to full version in a saved signature block. Can’t go wrong that way![/quote]
Easier, but not correct.
I think that whilst most military people wouldn’t comment if you used full ranks etc when corresponding with them, they may consider it ‘odd’ , I would. Is it a reputation or presentation thing? Probably. But I think that doing things properly just makes us look that little bit more professional in the Services’ eyes which can’t be bad.
You can save 2 signature blocks in some versions of Outlook anyway; probably not in the one BADGER uses though!
[size=3]Outlook for us only allows 1 signature. I have the fully typed out ‘for civvies’ style as I find it frustrating having to change it back and forth all the time. Having said that, I will change it to the approved shorthand if emailing any regular Military, WEXO or OC WG! [/size]
I have them both in the same signature, just delete the one I don’t need. saves me having to type any more than necessary. 
More white mans problems. Only in the ACO could dudes get wound about things like this :woohoo: :lol:
Absolutely! Fairly simple really!
Wouldn’t it be great if people did what they have been trained to do and what publications direct them to do? But then there would be no need for this site if they did that!
Oops, I put a ‘thank you’ on your post - does that mean I’ll get ban points? After all, you are almost persona non grata!!
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=9981]JSP101 should be your guide for this.
http://www.da.mod.uk/publications/library/miscellaneous/JSP101%20Version%203-1%20June%202010.pdf
It’s a fairly turgid read, but it tells you how to write stuff and the e-version is pretty easy to get around.
Basic rules are if something is going to a military recipient (or civilian in the MoD) ie someone who should know what the shortened ranks are, use the shortened version. If you’re writing to a civvy, use your rank in full. Same goes for positions.[/quote]
Reading through that, it is clear that a lot of the rules are not being followed by most of the CFAVs I know. Staff at WHQ do and some of the Wing Staff do as well, but others, together with the majority of squadron staff, do not.
My own CO does not include a signature block at all, and on occasions where he has asked me to check emails for clarity I have ended up completely re-writing them for the (basic!) grammatical errors they are often littered with. As squadron MCO, I frequently have to remind him of the importance of the public image of the squadron and of the ATC, and how making basic errors in external emails looks bad.
That said, I have only been back in the Corps since February, and I know the rules and guidance because, being unemployed, I have had the time to find them myself. Is/was training offered to CFAVs on how to use email correctly, or at least are/were they made aware that such guidance exists?
Things must be going very well in the corps if this is the sort of thing you worry about…
We are extraordinarily talented and are capable of worrying about many things at once.
I worry about at least a dozen things, of varying degrees of importance, on a daily basis 
I worry about the level of activities and training the cadets are getting if people are worrying about things like signature blocks and how they are addressed by people.
I worry about the food next weekend, I worry about the care of my cadets, i worry that i wont be able to live with myself if someone gets annoyed because of my Signature block on my bader email… Troubling times
There are other things you should worry more about…
Don’t worry about the future; or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday.
Baz Luhrmann
The man wins with a baz quote… well played