Excuse my ignorance
Thread Starter
Tomjoad,
Thanks for that, I think! I believe that I was trying to suggest that the reason that the aircraft technical trades had the anomalous J/T and C/T relates to the need for extra levels of training and experience for those trades. I was certainly not complaining about the Vulcan course, it kept me on my toes. I do suspect that to some degree all RAF trades had precedence in the RN and Army, and therefore their rank structures may have dictated the set up I was involved with. Hopefully someone better qualified than me could explain where these ranks came from, why they were maintained and why the modern service has decided to ditch them. For me, at 60, it has little consequence, just historical interest.
Smudge
PS. 4maststacker, exactly what I wondered. If other trades were subject to such exigencies, then was there a need for the "extra" ranks.
Thanks for that, I think! I believe that I was trying to suggest that the reason that the aircraft technical trades had the anomalous J/T and C/T relates to the need for extra levels of training and experience for those trades. I was certainly not complaining about the Vulcan course, it kept me on my toes. I do suspect that to some degree all RAF trades had precedence in the RN and Army, and therefore their rank structures may have dictated the set up I was involved with. Hopefully someone better qualified than me could explain where these ranks came from, why they were maintained and why the modern service has decided to ditch them. For me, at 60, it has little consequence, just historical interest.
Smudge
PS. 4maststacker, exactly what I wondered. If other trades were subject to such exigencies, then was there a need for the "extra" ranks.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,860 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.
Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.
The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.
Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.
The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smudge,
I believe you are correct, I always understood the additional ranks on the tech trades was due to requirement for extra tier of supervision, ect. Never could understand why it applied to the musicians though!
I believe you are correct, I always understood the additional ranks on the tech trades was due to requirement for extra tier of supervision, ect. Never could understand why it applied to the musicians though!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.
Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.
The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.
Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.
The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.
Thread Starter
Tomjoad,
A diversion if you will allow. When I went through Halton as a Craft Apprentice I also played Trombone in the Apprentice Brass Band. The Bandmaster was a Chief Technician called Ron Galloway, a fellow trombonist, but, he had a line that always went down well in polite circles. He was an ex Nav Inst Chief Technician, and always pointed out that he had remusterd from "Instruments to Instruments", he always made the point that dropping a few trade groups ensured he was earning less. A smashing bloke. But the trade group mish mash throws up loads of other trade/pay anomalies. Is it really true that Pilots are TG21, the same as guardroom staff ? You would need a degree to sort it all out, and perhaps that's what the service is trying to do now.
Smudge
A diversion if you will allow. When I went through Halton as a Craft Apprentice I also played Trombone in the Apprentice Brass Band. The Bandmaster was a Chief Technician called Ron Galloway, a fellow trombonist, but, he had a line that always went down well in polite circles. He was an ex Nav Inst Chief Technician, and always pointed out that he had remusterd from "Instruments to Instruments", he always made the point that dropping a few trade groups ensured he was earning less. A smashing bloke. But the trade group mish mash throws up loads of other trade/pay anomalies. Is it really true that Pilots are TG21, the same as guardroom staff ? You would need a degree to sort it all out, and perhaps that's what the service is trying to do now.
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Rigga - thanks for answering my Q.
Smuj - I have no axe to grind, was just curious.
I do wonder why the RAF doesn't adopt a rank structure consistent either within itself or within the Armed Forces in general. The RN, RM & Army have WO2s, the RM, Army and RAF Regt have LCpls.
Wouldn't it make sense for the RAF to make SAC(T)s LCpls, what are now Flt Sgts be WO2s, and have Flt Sgt as a rank equivalent to Chf Tech? That would fit in with the RM & Army's progression of
Pte
LCpl
Cpl
Sgt
SSgt
WO2
WO1
The RN has almost the same (less LCpl).
It would be far more coherent in joint environments, and allow for more frequent promotion for the RAF (i.e. more ranks to attain). Of course if WO1 comes at age 50, then maybe not!
Smuj - I have no axe to grind, was just curious.
I do wonder why the RAF doesn't adopt a rank structure consistent either within itself or within the Armed Forces in general. The RN, RM & Army have WO2s, the RM, Army and RAF Regt have LCpls.
Wouldn't it make sense for the RAF to make SAC(T)s LCpls, what are now Flt Sgts be WO2s, and have Flt Sgt as a rank equivalent to Chf Tech? That would fit in with the RM & Army's progression of
Pte
LCpl
Cpl
Sgt
SSgt
WO2
WO1
The RN has almost the same (less LCpl).
It would be far more coherent in joint environments, and allow for more frequent promotion for the RAF (i.e. more ranks to attain). Of course if WO1 comes at age 50, then maybe not!
Thread Starter
Roadster,
Perhaps just go down the road of the "E" system as used for NATO equivalent ranks would make sense. E1 to E7 for the non coms, and O1 to O7 for the Royals. Everyone on the planet might know here they stand then. I was once severely bollocked for not wearing my beret on the aircraft pan at Topcliffe. The bloke who dished out the bollocking was big, knew loads of offensive words and only had two stripes, with a squiggly thing. I was a Sgt at the time and had no idea if this scooter was in ascendancy. Regardless, I put my beret on, because there were no jets around. Point being, inter service wise it must be bloody confusing, I'm sure due to my youthful appearance he thought I was an ATC cadet.
Smudge
Perhaps just go down the road of the "E" system as used for NATO equivalent ranks would make sense. E1 to E7 for the non coms, and O1 to O7 for the Royals. Everyone on the planet might know here they stand then. I was once severely bollocked for not wearing my beret on the aircraft pan at Topcliffe. The bloke who dished out the bollocking was big, knew loads of offensive words and only had two stripes, with a squiggly thing. I was a Sgt at the time and had no idea if this scooter was in ascendancy. Regardless, I put my beret on, because there were no jets around. Point being, inter service wise it must be bloody confusing, I'm sure due to my youthful appearance he thought I was an ATC cadet.
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smuj,
'Instruments to instruments' - I like that good sense of humour, he sounds like a good bloke.
Yep I guess the trade structures were/are a bit of a nightmare and that is without considering all the attentional Q-annotations. I must admit thought when I was serving you got used to it at a working level, I guess having a really good understanding of your own area and less so of others. I'd be surprised re the Pilot TG 21 tag, never heard that before. The O side is not organised by trade, aircrew were administered under the General Duties (GD) branch, believe still are. All Os below Wg Cdr belonged to their own branch specialisation eg Eng, Admin, Regt etc - all on a common pay scale. On promotion to Wg Cdr all transferred to the GD branch - believe that is still the case. As always, stand by to be corrected.
'Instruments to instruments' - I like that good sense of humour, he sounds like a good bloke.
Yep I guess the trade structures were/are a bit of a nightmare and that is without considering all the attentional Q-annotations. I must admit thought when I was serving you got used to it at a working level, I guess having a really good understanding of your own area and less so of others. I'd be surprised re the Pilot TG 21 tag, never heard that before. The O side is not organised by trade, aircrew were administered under the General Duties (GD) branch, believe still are. All Os below Wg Cdr belonged to their own branch specialisation eg Eng, Admin, Regt etc - all on a common pay scale. On promotion to Wg Cdr all transferred to the GD branch - believe that is still the case. As always, stand by to be corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worst situation for me was down at Abbey Wood I was not very good and had no real interest in the other service rank slides - I ended up waving at everybody. It's a game.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,860 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Tom, I wasn't meaning necessarily in skills but in rank, it does seem a total dumbing down, as an SAC if you were detached to a Luftwaffe station you would be expected to dine in the conscripts restaurant and I use the last word with a pinch of salt, hence everyone would be given SGT stripes to wear for the duration. It seems to have done the replacement for a JT a disservice in effect demoting the trade qualification.
I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.
I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.
Thread Starter
TomJoad,
The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.
Smudge
The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad,
The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.
Smudge
The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the day before the '64 trade structure, the list one, technical trades wore their stripes inverted, chief techs with a crown above, their next rank being Master Technician, a Warrant officer technician, Following the '64 review they (the Chf techs) had their crowns removed and they then had to go through the Flt Sgt rank, they were mighty miffed. A Chf tech was at the top of his trade, IIRC Master Tech posts were few and far between and much coveted. It should also be remembered that there were technician ranks in most trade groups pre '64, I roomed with a J/T supplier in Cyprus in 1970, he'd had an "interesting" career. There was IR much resentment in most trades, I think the review in '64 succeeded in hacking off most ground trades, it seems to me that the tradition of cocking up ground trades is continuing.
PM
PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
chief techs with reversed stripes and a crown
Over the last 50 years or so, compared to the RN and Army, the RAF seems to have certainly messed about with it's non-com ranks, especially in the technical trades. The other two services have also had to contend with technical advancements but have managed, more or less, to do so within their traditional rank structure.
I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.
Never had the good fortune to meet a VC holder when I was serving (or since, for that matter) so I never had the opportunity to observe the custom.
Gentleman Aviator
TTN - I think you are right but IIRC the saluting the MoH thing is a rule rather than a tradition.
Never met a VC and only met a MoH holder once - in a bar in Key West. Neither of us was in uniform, but it was quite an afternoon/night - I think .......
Never met a VC and only met a MoH holder once - in a bar in Key West. Neither of us was in uniform, but it was quite an afternoon/night - I think .......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smuj, I'm confused. In your original post you state that you became a civilian in 1997. In post 30 you speak of your 30 years service. As the 214th entry were at Halton from 1969 - 1971 either your demob date is incorrect or your alleged 30 years service is incorrect, which is it? 
Thread Starter
Rotary Eng,
Depends how you want to quantify it. My attestation date was 8 Jan 1969, whilst my last day at work was in October "ish" 1997, my official demob date was actually in February 1999, ( medical discharge). I really don't care whether it's counted as 28 or 30 years. It has no importance to anyone. My reference was simply to date attested to date ended service. I do hope that answers your query, I'm sure it us of little interest to many other PPruners.
Best wishes
Smudge
Depends how you want to quantify it. My attestation date was 8 Jan 1969, whilst my last day at work was in October "ish" 1997, my official demob date was actually in February 1999, ( medical discharge). I really don't care whether it's counted as 28 or 30 years. It has no importance to anyone. My reference was simply to date attested to date ended service. I do hope that answers your query, I'm sure it us of little interest to many other PPruners.
Best wishes
Smudge