RAF Terms and conditions etc...

[Big Cheese1]

Hi all,

I'm due to start IOT in a few months and I've a couple of q's regarding pay etc.

I've been made aware that as a non-grad I'm deemed to be worth less to the eyes of the RAF and also with regards to accelerated career progression up to Flt Lt. I'm 25 years of age and have been working in the city for much of this therefore I was surprised to find that a 21 year old grad is deemed to have more life experience etc, thus the larger salary etc...

Would anyone happen to know if this is simly a case of 'life's tough - get over it' or would there not be more of a look case by case to determine salary etc...

Finally, I've been offered a PC, and I was curious to find out what the course of action would be should I not wish to meet the 18/40 point and wish to leave earlier - am I right in thinking that this is known as PVR?

Thanks in advance (Just to point out, I'm not trying to be negative at all, I'm just wanting to get everything clear prior to me turning up!!)

Regards
BC

[airborne_artist]

Would anyone happen to know if this is simly a case of 'life's tough - get over it' or would there not be more of a look case by case to determine salary etc...

It's a case of "if you can't take a joke, etc."

Finally, I've been offered a PC, and I was curious to find out what the course of action would be should I not wish to meet the 18/40 point and wish to leave earlier - am I right in thinking that this is known as PVR?

Yes.

[Tiger_mate]

Jeez, he has not even joined yet and already he is getting his PVR squared away. He will soon learn that he is anything but the 'Big cheese'

[Pontius Navigator]

Give le petit fromage his due, he has been trying for 3 years and is intending to become a Rock. I am sure he will enjoy a very testing and exhilarating time once he graduates. As a Rock he will reach the frontline sooner than aircrew and have plenty of chance to show his mettle.

Unfortunately he will probably not get flt lt until he is turned 30.

[TheInquisitor]

Would anyone happen to know if this is simly a case of 'life's tough - get over it' or would there not be more of a look case by case to determine salary etc...
You need to start by knowing your place, and your place will be at the bottom of the pile. You will be paid according to your rank, and your rank progression will be determined by your qualifications on joining. Your 'experience' in the city is of no relevance to the RAF, as you will soon discover.

You need to be cautious with this "I worked in the city, I deserve more" attitude. You will not last 5 minutes at IOT if you take that with you.

Best of luck.

[Tourist]

In his defence, I would agree that he will have gained more in the city than as a student.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, we had someone very similar in our initial sift and to a young 17 year old he seemed the height of sophistication and maturity.

He didn't get to first base. Give Le Petit Fromage his due, he is at first base and it took him three years to do it. Shows some grit and determination. I guess where he is going he will get plenty more grit and need every bit of determination. :)

[Tourist]

I would certainly agree that the learning curve is dramatically steeper for the older entrants, just never understood the fetish for graduates:confused:

[Big Cheese1]

Pontius,

Many thanks for your comments - as you say, it's taken some grit and determination though I've finally got the foot through the door!

TheInquisitor,

I'm not trying to say that I deserve more, I'm merely trying to find out if it's as simple as grad - pay and promotion prospects good and fast, nongrad - pay and promotion prospects not so good (initially!)and considerably slower. From what I can see it appears to be the case.

I've read some more about this and from what I can gather it's to ensure that the lad who joins at 18 compared to the other guy who goes to uni reach flt lt at approx the same amount of time.

As you no doubt know yourself, not all non grads will be 18 therefore I've asked the question.

And with regards to the PVR comment, I'm not at all looking at getting out before getting in, I just intend on being as gen'd up as possible on the small print - there seems to be a fair amount of threads regarding this, pensions, pay etc so it seemed like a valid question to ask.

[TheInquisitor]

it's as simple as grad - pay and promotion prospects good and fast, nongrad - pay and promotion prospects not so good (initially!)
Yes, you have that correct - payscales are fixed to rank, and rank progression is time-based to Flt Lt - non-negotiable (unless you f**k-up, and can then be 'negotiated' back a year or so!)

Apologies for misreading your intentions, and the best of luck for IOT.

[speeddial]

I'm 29 and applying for a commission, one of the reasons being I have learnt in the "real world" that money isn't everything, I'm happy to take a huge pay drop to join the Service and be on the slow track to promotion to join a community where regular job changes and deployments make you a competent individual in all aspects of life.

One question though, why would you have a steeper learning curve as someone who is older than a university leaver? The RAuxAF must have solved the problem whatever it is?

[Tourist]

Just because the human animal's learning rate is dropping from the moment they are born. If we could take 3 yr olds they would find it easier.
On your course you will find that the 19yr old gits will do very little work, come in hung-over etc and unprepared and still get through whereas you with your life experiance have probably developed a decent work-ethic by now and will need every bit of it. It doesn't mean you won't win the prize, but boy will you have worked for it!

It's the truth behind the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

[Pontius Navigator]

Stamina also comes with age. The young sprogs can generally wing the fitness thing. The mid-20s have often lost the physical fitness edge. The 30 plus guys can often continue for longer.

Then there is the acceptance thing.

Simply the 18 yr old by the time he has been commissioned 8 years will know his stuff and he will be able to earn the respect of the men. A 26 yr old that has been in a year will be treated the same but won't have that 8 years experience to draw on.

[helo425]

As someone who Mr Cheese will be lisening to while he runs around with the pine poles I am looking forward to seeing how his time in the city will be of benefit.

[speeddial]

Interesting comments, the AFCO told me that the average age for an officer application is around 29, which you can assume means the average age of those accepted is around 29?

[Pontius Navigator]

Speeddial - statistics remember.

A significant number of officers are commission from the ranks. A warrant officer would be commissioned as a flt lt and will in all probability be in his early 40s.

[Time Flies]

As someone who Mr Cheese will be lisening to while he runs around with the pine poles I am looking forward to seeing how his time in the city will be of benefit.

Firstly, helo425, I can't see one example of Big Cheese1 stating his time in the city will be of benefit. He was simply asking a question regarding age vs pay.

Secondly, I find it awfully presumptuous that you should think "Mr Cheese" will be lisening [sic] to you. If you are, as I suspect, another IOTC Hitler then I'm sure, like me, he will give you a stiff ignoring!

[speeddial]

PN, sorry I meant apply from the civilian world rather than from the ranks, hence the maximum age is late 30s for most branches.

[cazatou]

Time Flies

Have a look at helo 425's previous posts - quite informative.

[Big Cheese1]

All,

There appears to be some confusion perhaps in regards to my tact with reference to my work experience so far. When I say that I've been working in the city, this is in no way trying to suggest that I'm more clued up than the next guy, it's simply to put my own situation into some context (albeit minutely) I'm not trying to emphasise an time spent in the square mile, it makes no difference.

I was simply trying to determine whether it was the case that the RAF considers substantial work experience (possibly age?) when determining the rank (and therefore pay) upon graduation.

It appears that the answer is very black and white - holder of a degree and you'll grad as a Fg Off regardless, without and you'll be an Act Plt Off. Not the biggest drama at the end of the day and certainly not my main concern - that of successfully passing the course!

[Al R]

The RAF has to take an objective view - after all, the variables that civvy street can offer you (and the RAF) are far greater than whatever Uni might have to offer the job. Unfair maybe, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

You seem a mature type, so just keep your gob shut shut shut and look on IOT as the sighter into the bank for H - good luck.

[CirrusF]

I've been made aware that as a non-grad I'm deemed to be worth less to the eyes of the RAF


I think that is perhaps a hangover from twenty years ago, when getting into and graduating from university actually meant something, and actually brought something useful to the services. The services therefore offered seniority incentives to graduates in order to compete on the job market.

The problem nowadays is that you are considered to be a "graduate" if you have done "meeja studies" at "The University of Bognor Regis" and so are given equal status to somebody who has graduated with a double-first from Cambridge. I think that a lot of these "degrees" are next to useless and it is not so easy to justify offering blanket extra seniority to graduates of today.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think that a lot of these "degrees" are next to useless and it is not so easy to justify offering blanket extra seniority to graduates of today.

You may think that but I could not possibly comment. As for seniority, it is indeed still given. However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something.

[CirrusF]

However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something.


Ah, I anticipated that all the "I attended the university of life" posters would be along to attack that post. But tell me, if graduating from a decent university is worth nothing to the Services as you appear to be implying, then why do the Services pay cadets to go to university? And why do the US military go even further and pay for their officers to do PhDs? And if all the best private sector employers compete for the best graduates in the job market, don't you think that the Services should also be trying to get the best graduates too? Or do you think that there is something different about a career in the services that means that the Services do not need graduates?

[Time Flies]

Cazatou

Are you being serious? I have read them and will never get those 5 minutes back.

[Irish Tempest]

Due to the Age Discrimination Act (recently brought in by the Government) all 3 forces had a hard look at the pay scales, increment levels etc and found there was significant disparity between RN/RAF and Army.

From memory one of the issues was non-grads in the Army & RAF started at a lower increment level than Naval College Entrants (NCE) RN. They have now all aligned (much to the upset of a few non grad RN NCE!) The RN is now paying less to NCE's on entry than they did a couple of years ago... so all services are equally shafted... (TSR2 & CVN anyone?)

The current situation for the RN is that you will get seniority 'awarded' to you by AIB on the basis of your qualifications (not your age - as was the case previously). I am led to believe the RAF situation is exactly the same. If in doubt what you will get do contact your Officer Recruiter who will ask the question for you and also preserve your anonanimity.

A hons degree will get x years seniority and a Masters will get x + 1. The location of your alma mater does not matter a hoot.

And you worked in the city... so?

I had a guy from the city (hotshot stockbroker) joined as an NCE in 97 was one of the first guys to be asked to volret... Nice fella, well spoken etc... I can see how he got through the 3 day snapshot board... but when the rain started p#ssing on Dartmoor that’s the test of mettle. Just blatantly unsuited to Military life.

Good luck at the sausage factory and personally I would play down the city bit and keep your head down.:ok:

[davejb]

However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something. Ah, I anticipated that all the "I attended the university of life" posters would be along to attack that post. But tell me, if graduating from a decent university is worth nothing to the Services as you appear to be implying, then why do the Services pay cadets to go to university?

Are you serious Cirrus? (Now say it quickly 10 times). How did you get from A to B via X? PN was merely stating the bleeding obvious - the benefit awarded to graduates was 'fair' in that a graduate in decades past was considered to bring a better academic background to the party in lieu of 'life experience' - it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain cell that the past decade has seen a significant shift away from degrees that could be considered useful to the forces - hell, to humanity even - ie away from difficult stuff like maths, engineering and the sciences, towards psychobabble, sports management and navel fluff contemplation, (media studies et al).... which are as much use to anyone as t1t5 on a bull.

Any sensible recruitment policy, civvy or mil, ought by now to be looking very seriously at the content of a degree before awarding any form of advanced standing for it - all degrees are far from equal. (Ditto all secondary school quals, actually).

why do the US military go even further and pay for their officers to do PhDs?

I doubt these PhD's are in media studies, Sports management, or Tourism...do you actually think it's a good thing that more and more such degrees are on offer these days in the UK, while (for example) physics departments are closing due to lack of student uptake - is that good for the country, do you think? Do we actually NEED all the supposed psychologists we churn out annually?

Dave
(Grad of the University of Life , thank God, prior to anywhere else).

Edited repeatedly due to bad typing caused by apoplectic spittle sticking the keys together....nurse! Fetch my medicine.....

[CirrusF]

davejb - I think you may not have read my post correctly. I agree with you entirely. The problem today is that "graduates" with a third in from an ex-polytechnic in "meeja studies" are considered equal to a graduate who has (say) a first in history or engineering from Oxford or Cambridge.

The former are no more worth to the services than a non-graduate but the latter (assuming they have the other required qualities too) are very valuable.

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you Dave, most eloquent.

Cirrus, surely you have heard of green shield flt lt? Regardless of the grade of degree or the subjects read they skipped the ranks of APO, PO and FO and thus 3 1/2 years of protected stupidity. As a flt lt they were expected by their airmen to have all the professional and life skills of the aforesaid APO, PO, FO once they had reached flt lt.

Having jumped the ranks they were then behind the 8-ball in their race to sqn ldr. What they had going for them was education and a keen analytical and commnications ability. Many indeed prove that their proven academic abilities stand them in good stead as they climb the greasy pole - many do not.

The Services now have in place a foundation degree system and also sponsor selected students for MDAs and allow sabaticals for PhDs. I know two AVM that gained their PhDs having previously only graduated from Sleaford Tech.

PN
BSc, BA^2

[Pontius Navigator]

davejb - I think you may not have read my post correctly. I agree with you entirely. The problem today is that "graduates" with a third in from an ex-polytechnic in "meeja studies" are considered equal to a graduate who has (say) a first in history or engineering from Oxford or Cambridge.

The former are no more worth to the services than a non-graduate but the latter (assuming they have the other required qualities too) are very valuable.

Ah Cirrus, we agree. It would be interesting to see what degrees successful applicants actually have. I know one graduate with a degree in modern history. This proves an ability to research and present material. As it happens it included a thesis on air power. I suspect that your media studies guys don't hack it to the front line.

Digressing I find it distressing having to explain the workings of Newton's Laws to staff officers who should have that basic level of physics. Perhaps we select SO2s to the wrong criteria.

[CirrusF]

Cirrus, surely you have heard of green shield flt lt? Regardless of the grade of degree or the subjects read they skipped the ranks of APO, PO and FO and thus 3 1/2 years of protected stupidity. As a flt lt they were expected by their airmen to have all the professional and life skills of the aforesaid APO, PO, FO once they had reached flt lt.

I take my hat off completely to those who are committed and keen enough to skip the chance of a university education and join the services in the ranks and work their way up to a commission, then right up to the top. But it is not really very realistic to build an entire career structure for every candidate around that premise. That is why there is already a staggered entry system (enlisted/officer). Building in another split at officer level (school-leaver/graduate) is just another way of enticing the best candidates to join.

[davejb]

Sorry Cirrus -
I'm happy to know you agree - although I'm damned if re-reading your post leads me to that conclusion, even in retrospect <g>

Also of note - there is far more 'spoon feeding' in the education system now, including University, than in the past...I include the recent past in that. It would be very dicey, these days, to assume anything about a graduate, beyond a certain competence in their chosen field of study.

This is not entirely 'their' fault - although it is, of course, only natural to blame 'them' for it all - serve them right for being young and better looking, having 32 teeth etc.... previous generations kicked footballs, threw sticks, built dens, and made their own explosives (cheaper than buying Standard Fireworks 'Little Demons' etc) - for the past 20 years kids have played on computers instead - we learned a lot from real life that current generations simply have no experience of. This lack of practical experience and home grown skills is now biting us in the a**e.

Dave

Another edit!

PN - They're not Newton's laws any more, that's far too non-pc... they'll be Newton's guidelines, or possibly Newton's position paper now.

[AdLib]

Annnnnnd, you're back in the room.


BG1. Your experience in the big wide world will stand you in good stead in the little world that is the RAF. If you are going Per Ardua then by all means man up. To me you sound like the the kind of thoughtful and intelligent bloke who'll keep his troops out of the merd. And that, essentially, is what it's all about.

A full and complete picture of the terms and conditions of your employment? You'd think after 90 ish years the RAF would be able to do that. Don't bother banging your head against that wall. If you are serious about the Regiment then flippin well dive in and MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Some decisions come from what you think is right, not a carefully balanced equation of pros and cons. But you know that already.

Sorry for sounding a bit american there.

[Biggus]

Regarding PNs comment ref 'green shield' Flt Lts skipping the ranks of APO, PO and FO, I offer the following observation......

I took my degree in the late 1970s, getting a 2i from a mainstream university, and joined the RAF, as a 'green shielder'..... I believe I had the most seniority available (there was more if you got a 2ii or better).

I graduated from IOT as a PILOT OFFICER, was a FLYING OFFICER a few months later, and made FLT LT about 6 months after that. So, I became a Flt Lt while still in the training system, so talk of the rank but not the experience is totally correct, and I don't dispute that..... However, in the cause of accuracy as a 'green shielder' I did not skip ranks, but rather raced through them!

Needless to say, I have not raced through them since.....!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, indeed you are correct now I think about it. We had one in the 60s were there were fairly rare. Of my nav studes all graduates arrived on the course as fg off. This included 2 straight through navs who had probably been POs at IOT.

Both now at least wg cdr whereas of the other 5 ex-pilots, the only one that qualified as a nav retired as a flt lt. The first to be chopped was a sqn ldr eng. Of the other 3 no trace.

[ianp]

Bit late on the bandwagon as the thread as it seems to have drifted a little, however: Basically Cheese, life and, more importantly, the vagaries of military pay are not always fair, tough.
I joined the RN from the merchant navy where I was a qualified bridge watchkeeper and received no advancement although chaps on my intake with a 3rd from Hull in sociology got 2 years seniority. Ironically the RAF does recognise service in the Merchant Navy so when I transferred to the RAF I got an extra few years senority for merchant navy service, bizarre.
One thing, if you are joining for the money aren't there better jobs out there? I joined in my early twenties and cared not one jot about the salary (maybe I should as I am still skint, ho hum) as long as they let me mess around in aeroplanes, you need to do at least a few years in and get an ATPL before you are allowed to be cynical about the money.
However it all works out try and enjoy IOT and have fun out there.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think Le Petit Fromage is not interested in the dosh as he has been trying for 3 years to get where he has got. I think he is really asking whether the present system is fair and actually attracts the right calibre of recruit. He may be right.

A 25 yr old non-graduate may well be of equal value as a graduate but IMNSHO still less value than an 18 year old entrant with 7 years service under his belt.

PS,

IanP, I don't think an ATPL is on the cards in this case.

[stuartm]

Is moving up to Flt Lt in the space of a year after IOT as a graduate a common occurrence? If not is there a general rule?

I'm starting IOT at the start of next year. Throughout the whole application process the time frames of promotion have never been discussed.

[Melchett01]

A hons degree will get x years seniority and a Masters will get x + 1.

Does that still hold true? I came into the RAF having got a 2.1 in my undergrad degree and then completed a MSc in Met. When I started OASC, I had to apply for the extra year's seniority rather than it being automatically awarded as was suggested in the relevant PAM Air, and was duly given it having cited the relevant documents and stumped up a copy of my degree paperwork

Fast forward a couple of years and I changed branches and lost my seniority as they argued that they didn't know why I was given an extra year's seniority, despite it being clearly set out in the documentation. When I appealed through a very understanding OC PMS at the time, he argued my case and failed, stating he'd tried and that PMA could do whatever they liked.

I would be interested to know if the Masters = extra seniority still applies. Not that it makes a single bit of difference to me anymore, but more out of curiosity and to confirm whether or not PMA and my branch sponsor at the time are the gits I thought they were back then

[Brain Potter]

I believe that an increased emphasis on recruiting university graduates came with the ending of the Cranwell Flight Cadet scheme. Up to that point the service had considered that it's own college provided an a education equivalent to that of a university. I think that they even tried (and failed?)to have the course ratified as such by the academic governing bodies.

I don't know what was ultimately prompted the end of the Flight Cadet scheme but I suppose that it was probably cost, together with an increasing societal view that such traditional colleges were anachronistic and not academically on-par with the rapidly-evolving universities. When the traditional 3-year Cranwell course ended the service sought to recruit more graduates, not because what they would have to offer in the early part of their career, but because of the perceived importance of having senior officers educated to an equivalent level as their civil service and political peers.

The criticism of the graduate scheme is understandable but the increments are often mis-understood. The graduate can be seen to be favoured over the 18-year old school leaver that joins on the same day. However, the scheme is actually designed to keep the pay of a candidate who goes from school straight into higher education for a 3-year course equivalent to that of an 18-year old who joins-up from the same school year. The intention is clearly to remove any pay/seniority incentive for a candidate not to obtain a university degree. I think the flaw in the scheme was that it saw graduates promoted to Flt Lt whilst still in training, thus producing the "green shield" criticisms.

What is particularly telling about the way our education system has been run in the last 10+ years is the widespread reduction in the status of a "degree-level education", as it has to be qualified with "in what?" and "from where?". As the face of higher education is now totally different to that of 20 years ago, maybe the services ought to have a serious look how they wants their officers of the future to be educated.

[kharmael]

Aircrew + MEng = Flt Lt 7 Months after grad from IOT.

[Wader2]

It is instructive to look at the Cranwell graduation lists. While it does not answer the 'from where' and 'in what' questions and it also leaves hanging the question 'to what extent', the majority passing IOT seem to have degrees.

A quick eyeball also suggests that there are more BSc and BEng than BA and there is a fair sprinkling of LLB. The numbers of non-graduates will include those commissioned from the ranks as well as DE.

Subjectively this suggests that DEs are in the minority and perhaps contentiously will be would-be aircrew.

[XV277]

The recruiting process seems to put less emphasis on this than it used to - there used to be (this would be mid 80s) an RAF Careers publication that detailed the rank, salary and progression timescales for differing levels of qualification upon entry/completion of IOT.

Level of degree was a factor in where you started on the ladder, and the timescale to 'automatic' promotion.

Having had a quick look at the website (and based on the OP), there is nothing similar these days.

Presumably suitability of degree/academic institution these days is sorted out at OASC?

[Scribbly]

Big Cheese, I joined up after 10 years in the University of Life, studying exactly the same subjects as I do every day now, and following 4 years commissioned in the RAuxAF doing the same again. I got no seniority at all as it was all deemed "irrelevant". (The Oggie Sqn were not pleased to be told that what they did was irrelevant to the wider Air Force, as you can imagine). I took a huge drop in wages and my final Mess Bill from IOT was more than my wages that month, but it was a great party....
The decision on the award of seniority was made by a civvy sitting in OASC, and I imagined she was just v busy so it was easier for her to say "no" than to work it out, and as I was an Offr Cadet by then I had no voice and just had to accept it.
Eventually a very dedicated OC Admin wrote on my behalf and I got just over a year seniority backdated, which was nice.
However....
When I was then working in an AFCO I wrote several letters to her on behalf of my candidates who I felt deserved some recognition for their experience, and most of them got it. I'm not sure how receptive your OC AFCO would be to writing that letter, but if you can provide evidence of relevant leadership skills/quals picked up in yr civ job then its worth a try for the sake of a stamp.
Now, as a career flt lt, I'm not in it for the money, (which is still pretty good though) but for the people, the challenges and the pension. Hope you enjoy what you're about to do, and good luck!

[Dan Winterland]

I joined at 24 having had a meteroric (but dull) career in the Civil Service, not previously having been to university. My grade was equivalent to Sqn Ldr (if you believed the rubbish they taught us at Cranwell) and I was informed on joining that I would get a one, possibly two year's seniority as a result of my experience. After graduating and told I was going to be an Acting Pilot Officer at the age of 25, I asked what happened to my promised seniority.

"Ah, that would only apply if you were going into the Admin Sec or Supply branch" was the answer.

It was a bit galling as a thirty year old Flying Officer seeing my peers reaching Flt Lt at the age of 26 because they got a 2.2 in Geography.


But I got over it! And being a 30 year old with one stripe gives you a good excuse for some very bad behaviour :E