On the naming front…
Pre-ATF Officers are Pilot Officers but known as ‘Officer Cadets’, so how about:
Pre-ATF SNCOs are Sergeant (ATC) but known as ‘SNCO Cadets’?
So you would have “Cadet SNCOs” (cadets) and “SNCO Cadets” (staff)?
[quote=“Hendon Chipmunk” post=8091]On the naming front…
Pre-ATF Officers are Pilot Officers but known as ‘Officer Cadets’, [/quote]
This seems like a fine opportunity for us to start calling them Pilot Officers 
That’s not at all confusing, I see no problem!
There are already SNCO (ATC) and ATC (SNCO), although their paths rarely cross…
Word on the street is that the White Tab is just phase 1 of this process and was done in a hurry as we needed to show those SNCOs who’ve not attended ATF and fall in line with the other services (Like PIs in the ACF)
Phase 2 is apparently the development and issue of white backed rank-slides with blue chevrons to identify those Sgt(ATC) types who’ve yet to attend ATF.
Come on Wilf get mocking one up!
That makes so much more sense! Would of been easier to wait for these rank tabs.
Just a quick one what do we as staff or the cadets gain by knowing if someone as done ATF? As long as wing knows wouldnt that be enough? Or is it just a ruse to embarrass people into going?
That sounds more like perpetual hopefulness on the part of the volunteer. Far too common sense for it to possibly have come from HQAC…
[quote=“zinggy” post=8123]That makes so much more sense! Would of been easier to wait for these rank tabs.
Just a quick one what do we as staff or the cadets gain by knowing if someone as done ATF? As long as wing knows wouldnt that be enough? Or is it just a ruse to embarrass people into going?[/quote]
There was the argument about accountability/responsibility on RAF Stations, whereby the SWO was less likely to bite the head off of an Off Cdt than a Pilot Officer. However, give that argument as much weight as you like, I personally think said individual would still receive a ‘quick debrief’ in the same manner, regardless.
[quote=“zinggy” post=8123]That makes so much more sense! Would of been easier to wait for these rank tabs.
Just a quick one what do we as staff or the cadets gain by knowing if someone as done ATF? As long as wing knows wouldnt that be enough? Or is it just a ruse to embarrass people into going?[/quote]Well, surely the argument is that as SSIC is the sergeant’s course, then they’re not really sergeants until they’ve done it.
I don’t have any problem with the idea personally.
[quote=“MattB” post=8128][quote=“zinggy” post=8123]That makes so much more sense! Would of been easier to wait for these rank tabs.
Just a quick one what do we as staff or the cadets gain by knowing if someone as done ATF? As long as wing knows wouldnt that be enough? Or is it just a ruse to embarrass people into going?[/quote][b]Well, surely the argument is that as SSIC is the sergeant’s course, then they’re not really sergeants until they’ve done it.
[/b]
I don’t have any problem with the idea personally.[/quote]
I did say this in the AP1358C thread but I was shot down 
Shot down because it isn’t entirely accurate. They are appointed as Sgts immediately but are on a probationary period of 12 months. they are expected to complete SSIC within that 12 months but are Sgts immediately and remain Sgts throughout the course.
If they don’t complete SSIC within 12 months they may have their appointment terminated but I know staff who have had legitimate reasons why they were unable to meet that timeline and were allowed some flexibility.
[quote=“zinggy” post=8141][quote=“MattB” post=8128][quote=“zinggy” post=8123]That makes so much more sense! Would of been easier to wait for these rank tabs.
Just a quick one what do we as staff or the cadets gain by knowing if someone as done ATF? As long as wing knows wouldnt that be enough? Or is it just a ruse to embarrass people into going?[/quote][b]Well, surely the argument is that as SSIC is the sergeant’s course, then they’re not really sergeants until they’ve done it.
[/b]
I don’t have any problem with the idea personally.[/quote]
I did say this in the AP1358C thread but I was shot down :P[/quote]
The ACF as ive mentioned earlier are PI’s until they have completed there course and training, which can be upto 18 months of training plus a one week course. Maby the ATC is bringing itself more into the line with the ACF’s way of doing things and just starting with the Rank Slides?
It wouldnt be a bad thing (for the majority of new staff), i know our training staff have mentioned to us that the ATC will be following suit pretty soon with regards to CFAV training.
[quote=“incubus” post=8142]Shot down because it isn’t entirely accurate. They are appointed as Sgts immediately but are on a probationary period of 12 months. they are expected to complete SSIC within that 12 months but are Sgts immediately and remain Sgts throughout the course.
If they don’t complete SSIC within 12 months they may have their appointment terminated but I know staff who have had legitimate reasons why they were unable to meet that timeline and were allowed some flexibility.[/quote]Indeed it may currently be technically correct, but the point is that if ATF is what trains them to be sergeants, then logically until such a time as they’ve passed that course they should be something other than sergeants… a sub-sergeant, or something.
[quote=“MattB” post=8145][quote=“incubus” post=8142]Shot down because it isn’t entirely accurate. They are appointed as Sgts immediately but are on a probationary period of 12 months. they are expected to complete SSIC within that 12 months but are Sgts immediately and remain Sgts throughout the course.
If they don’t complete SSIC within 12 months they may have their appointment terminated but I know staff who have had legitimate reasons why they were unable to meet that timeline and were allowed some flexibility.[/quote]Indeed it may currently be technically correct, but the point is that if ATF is what trains them to be sergeants, then logically until such a time as they’ve passed that course they should be something other than sergeants… a sub-sergeant, or something.[/quote]
Or…ummm…ACs.
I heard a couple of months ago from FS ATF that the white tapes for SNCOs would be introduced. At that time he seemed to think they would be worn in addition to the Sgt rank.
Evidently that changed.
I did also ask whether white discs behind the badge would be worn but was told “no”.
I’ve no idea why.
To me the logical conclusion to these changes would be not to appoint to Sgt until completion of SSIC.
Surely though (and this applies to Pilot Officers too) they are Sgts (and Plt Offs are Plt Offs), but effectively probationary Sgts.
Do we really need to start introducing yet more ranks just for the sake of it?
Keep it simple, theyre Sgts/Plt Offs, on probation until they pass the course.
By all means give them a “biff” identifier, white disk, white tab or whatever, but for the love of god it doesnt need to be over complicated/have ACO internal only made up ranks (like “Officer Cadets” who are really Pilot Officers) just for the bloody sake of it.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=8154][quote=“MattB” post=8145][quote=“incubus” post=8142]Shot down because it isn’t entirely accurate. They are appointed as Sgts immediately but are on a probationary period of 12 months. they are expected to complete SSIC within that 12 months but are Sgts immediately and remain Sgts throughout the course.
If they don’t complete SSIC within 12 months they may have their appointment terminated but I know staff who have had legitimate reasons why they were unable to meet that timeline and were allowed some flexibility.[/quote]Indeed it may currently be technically correct, but the point is that if ATF is what trains them to be sergeants, then logically until such a time as they’ve passed that course they should be something other than sergeants… a sub-sergeant, or something.[/quote]
Or…ummm…ACs.[/quote]Indeed, but I was talking in terms of their status, rather than what rank such a person would hold.
THIS ^^^
to me that sounds like the easiest to impliment and just as much, if not more of an incentive to get through ATF if uniform is not to be worn until after.
and to be fair falls closer to regular service, if you class ATF as phase 1 training
ie, after all the interviews, medicals, fitness tests a recruit doesnt wear a uniform until at phase 1,
so why not have the ACO fall in line, starting with the Wing/Region/Cranwell board as appropriate, signed off for drill by the WWO, and then sent off to ATF…?
after going through the effort of passing a board i am sure the incentive to actually be permitted to wear the uniform would be the next obvious goal more so than going to ATF*…
but if ATF and wearing uniform are mutually inclusive solves the issue…
Staff would come back “trained” and in uniform.
i guess it all depends how much weight HQAC puts on ATF Vs uniformed members of staff ie - which is of greater importance…
*it took me 16 months to get to ATF due to university commitments, but wore uniform the following parade night after my appointment letter was recieved
I agree with Steve.
Say they’ve passed their boards, but don’t formalise their appointment until completion on ATF. We could even do initial kitting at ATF, which would ensure everyone could get the right kit at the right time, and have lessons on how to wear it correctly.
Do the same for officer cadets and we’ve instantly made it easier for staff to actually get their uniform too!