No more ACs, LACs, and SACs....
Of course the front line just get on with it despite the actions of those at the top. It might be nice though if, every so often, the actions of those at the top actually helped the front line just get on with it.
TL (retired but daily contact with front line person)
TL (retired but daily contact with front line person)
So simply make it AC, LAC and SAC as the rank without is being shorthand for anything, meaning SAC is an SAC and the term Senior Air Craftsman wording no longer exists, hence no sex discrimination problems.
By the way, Nutloose, it's Senior Aircraftman (sans 's'), as I'm sure you knew
I was enlisted as NCA (airman aircrew in old money), and as my paperwork shows, I was never an aircraftman. I was an 'aircrew cadet'. A/Cdt on my 1250.
CG
CG
Of course we “pander” to the minority; as a white middle aged male, I’ve never been prejudiced against but I know many who have been. If this helps them, so be it.
The blinkered enthusiasm of Moglington shows a career-minded individual who believes there is a chance to move up the Officer rank structure if the right words are spoken. The reality is that support for aircraft is not what it should be in what are known as DLODs = Defence Lines of Development. DLODs are sub-divided into TEPIDOIL = Training; Equipment; Personnel; Infrastructure; Doctrine; Organisation; Information; Logistics. Presentationally, the likes of Moglington want all of these elements to be GREEN on the inevitable PowerPoint slide. We all know on PRuNE that GREEN was the ultimate colour [I know about Master Green] but, like the RAF Fitness Test, BLUE has been introduced as better than GREEN. However, most still see GREEN as being meeting the standard and the standard has quietly shifted so GREEN is really YELLOW.
Training and Personnel relies on people; Equipment, Infrastructure and Logistics relies on money. Information needs both. If you have not enough of either people or money, change the Doctrine and the Organisation. What is happening, and has been commented on very candidly by both serving and former serving personnel, is the latter two points of the DLOD. Standing up 'ghost squadrons' on dilapidated airfields where too many aircraft are being co-located, with Head of Establishment posts as non-aviation Stn Cdrs to allow the gender balance to manifest itself, and changing the junior rank structure to apparently appeal to tomorrow's recruits, is all smoke and mirrors to disguise the shocking state of the other 6 DLODs.
When a fully-costed programme is handed over with the statement "You have to save £x billions" and "No, you cannot have anyone recruited to fill the JPANs", the Air System as defined by Moglington is destined to crash and burn.
"Titanic" and "deck chairs" comes to mind.
Training and Personnel relies on people; Equipment, Infrastructure and Logistics relies on money. Information needs both. If you have not enough of either people or money, change the Doctrine and the Organisation. What is happening, and has been commented on very candidly by both serving and former serving personnel, is the latter two points of the DLOD. Standing up 'ghost squadrons' on dilapidated airfields where too many aircraft are being co-located, with Head of Establishment posts as non-aviation Stn Cdrs to allow the gender balance to manifest itself, and changing the junior rank structure to apparently appeal to tomorrow's recruits, is all smoke and mirrors to disguise the shocking state of the other 6 DLODs.
When a fully-costed programme is handed over with the statement "You have to save £x billions" and "No, you cannot have anyone recruited to fill the JPANs", the Air System as defined by Moglington is destined to crash and burn.
"Titanic" and "deck chairs" comes to mind.
Drifting but I am confused about what has happened to NCO ranks over the past years.
I should say that I in no way want to denigrate those currently serving or the ranks they hold but I would appreciate an explanation from someone still serving.
I left having completed 22 in 1986. In the aircraft trades it was the norm for someone, providing he had the right numbers and had passed the promotion exams, to reach Chf/Tech at around about 30 - 32 years old. This was based on time promotion which stopped about 2 years before I was due my Chief. As a result I was 2 years late in getting promoted, 34. The idea of a Tech.Cpl in his early to mid 30s. was practically unheard of. He would probably have gone at the 12 year point with no opportunity to sign on beyond that. What has changed?
I should say that I in no way want to denigrate those currently serving or the ranks they hold but I would appreciate an explanation from someone still serving.
I left having completed 22 in 1986. In the aircraft trades it was the norm for someone, providing he had the right numbers and had passed the promotion exams, to reach Chf/Tech at around about 30 - 32 years old. This was based on time promotion which stopped about 2 years before I was due my Chief. As a result I was 2 years late in getting promoted, 34. The idea of a Tech.Cpl in his early to mid 30s. was practically unheard of. He would probably have gone at the 12 year point with no opportunity to sign on beyond that. What has changed?
Last edited by The Oberon; 12th Jun 2022 at 03:49.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
The main question is does changing aircraft to air system and rank names etc increase the productivity or capability of the RAF, and the answer to that has to be no.
So why firke around with the names and ranks simply to be pc and be seen to be using corporate speak, while wasting precious parts of the budget that could be used elsewhere.
That’s what’s seriously wrong with it all.
So why firke around with the names and ranks simply to be pc and be seen to be using corporate speak, while wasting precious parts of the budget that could be used elsewhere.
That’s what’s seriously wrong with it all.
I have read the IBN, it really is eroding the rank structure (IMHO). I get that they are trying to make it gender neutral, but that is a farce. And to top it all off there was a survey carried out back in Dec 21, so its from within the ranks who wanted it changed, personally I reckon its just given the Top Brass the ammo to do what they have been after for a while to appease a small minority. They could have done this in a much better way.
It will all be so much easier when we all catch up with Manning - or whatever they are called this week. After all we’ve only ever been numbers on a spreadsheet as far as they are concerned; that’s about as gender neutral as you can get.
‘We’re not happy till you’re not happy’. Our new motto?
Or "we flap but don't fly".
Icon: a penguim.
Icon: a penguim.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 112 Likes
on
79 Posts
Drifting but I am confused about what has happened to NCO ranks over the past years.
I should say that I in no way want to denigrate those currently serving or the ranks they hold but I would appreciate an explanation from someone still serving.
I left having completed 22 in 1986. In the aircraft trades it was the norm for someone, providing he had the right numbers and had passed the promotion exams, to reach Chf/Tech at around about 30 - 32 years old. This was based on time promotion which stopped about 2 years before I was due my Chief. As a result I was 2 years late in getting promoted, 34. The idea of a Tech.Cpl in his early to mid 30s. was practically unheard of. He would probably have gone at the 12 year point with no opportunity to sign on beyond that. What has changed?
I should say that I in no way want to denigrate those currently serving or the ranks they hold but I would appreciate an explanation from someone still serving.
I left having completed 22 in 1986. In the aircraft trades it was the norm for someone, providing he had the right numbers and had passed the promotion exams, to reach Chf/Tech at around about 30 - 32 years old. This was based on time promotion which stopped about 2 years before I was due my Chief. As a result I was 2 years late in getting promoted, 34. The idea of a Tech.Cpl in his early to mid 30s. was practically unheard of. He would probably have gone at the 12 year point with no opportunity to sign on beyond that. What has changed?
I'm not serving, but, I can comment accordingly from recent direct exposure to those who are. .
The "numbers game " as you accurately define it began, as I'm sure you are aware in the late 70's , and thereafter gathered momentum to the extent people were getting "Spec Reps " and high scores almost as a matter of course, just to stay in the promotion bracket.
For new arrivals, the first bit is straightforward... AMM > first short tour as S.A.C, back for Techs course, then S.A.C Tech. Thereafter comes the problems.
Today, technical ability is but one element. To progress to Cpl requires a leadership course, same for Sgt. However, also factored in are the secondary duties, even tertiary at times, the range of which can be extensive and not simply directly related to work. Social / leisure pursuits also have a distinct bearing along with fitness levels.
The rank of Cpl was being promoted even when I was in as the aspirational rank and no further for many to achieve
.Never forgotten the Flt.Lt from Innsworth at the time who came to Bruggen to give us an "inspirational talk " on this...the front rows were occupied by the non tech trades...much in favour. The rear by engineers. I don't think he'd ever encountered engineers before.... giving vent to their feelings and sentiments.
One of the reasons many of us left, was, this wasn't part of the T's and C's when we joined. There's also the fact, as you know, and has often been commented on, that, overall the R.A.F have quietly reduced the levels of benefits over time. That, and there is no longer an expectation for people to serve any more than 12 years, some leave before, given few see it as lifetime career, unlike the past, and more an entry on the CV to enable them to continue a career elsewhere to gain a broader spectrum of experience and often in different sectors to aviation.
Those who remain and who have engaged for 22 yrs become "trapped " in one sense because the next step from Cpl to Sgt can prove very difficult, unless, as I say, they demonstrate not only the technical ability, but also the commitment to the other aspects I've mentioned.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Going back to the seventies stroke eighties there wasn’t a corporals leadership course until I believe late on into the eighties.
Progression was from SAC onto JT due to assessments numbers, the odd thing being if you served in Germany you got an extra point.
Cpl was on average 4 years on.
During the late eighties they then introduced a time limit to reach Cpl or you would not be allowed to sign on, which a lot of people fell foul off due to the simple fact they had done tours abroad and during those years you couldn’t be sent on JT courses.
So in effect it then made it nine years to Cpl and I knew one poor bugger that had done two overseas tours.
so LAC to SAC one year, SAC to JT three to four years and four to Cpl possibly could be done in nine, but having served 6 years abroad he would have had to do it in SIX! Which stunk.
The other disadvantages was the RAF lost long serving and experienced people in each rank, I knew a JT who was in for twenty two in the rank who was invaluable in teaching younger JT’s.
Progression was from SAC onto JT due to assessments numbers, the odd thing being if you served in Germany you got an extra point.
Cpl was on average 4 years on.
During the late eighties they then introduced a time limit to reach Cpl or you would not be allowed to sign on, which a lot of people fell foul off due to the simple fact they had done tours abroad and during those years you couldn’t be sent on JT courses.
So in effect it then made it nine years to Cpl and I knew one poor bugger that had done two overseas tours.
so LAC to SAC one year, SAC to JT three to four years and four to Cpl possibly could be done in nine, but having served 6 years abroad he would have had to do it in SIX! Which stunk.
The other disadvantages was the RAF lost long serving and experienced people in each rank, I knew a JT who was in for twenty two in the rank who was invaluable in teaching younger JT’s.
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jun 2022 at 17:19.
After Hereford, we Techies went to Scampton for Trade Management Training which was orientated around line teams, overseeing aircraft engine starts and marshalling using Hunters [including Avpin starts with the asbestos glove] then learning all the F700 documentation and responsibility for supervision and over-signatures. I felt that it gave me a thorough grounding in my management competency and accredited me with a significant amount of responsibility much quicker than would have been expected in a civilian equivalent employment.
During Gulf War 1 when I had been aircrew for a few years, one of the Cpl Techies on deployment was a former fellow student at Cosford. There was no prospect of promotion in TG2 (Avionics) and he was about to leave the Service having been a Cpl for 7 years.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
After Hereford, we Techies went to Scampton for Trade Management Training which was orientated around line teams, overseeing aircraft engine starts and marshalling using Hunters [including Avpin starts with the asbestos glove] then learning all the F700 documentation and responsibility for supervision and over-signatures. I felt that it gave me a thorough grounding in my management competency and accredited me with a significant amount of responsibility much quicker than would have been expected in a civilian equivalent employment.
Civilian qualifications as an LAE includes runs, and taxiing etc, I also do items that would probably be a Wing Commander and above.
In the 70’s and up to 1980 ‘we’ had Promotion exams.
From LAC to SAC for rigga’s you had to pass Hangar familiarisation, some classroom maths and a sort of H&S practical and a trade test…a bit of metal bashing.
From SAC we had to pass the “Science ‘B’” (a self-study maths and physics programme) to qualify for fitter’s course selection…and assessments of course.
From JT to Cpl we had to pass “Prom-Ex 2” which entailed studying sections of MAFL and ADMIN books with allocated SNCO’s as our guides and mentor’s …and assessments again, of course.
Time Promotion was ended in 1982, the year before my time to Cpl, and I was on Duty Airman in Laarbruch’s Guardroom on the day I should have been promoted - However, I did get my tapes a few months later.
Yes, Civilian Rigga’s life: As an LAE I taxied an ATR72, backing it out of one slot and over to a new slot in Jersey Airport…a bit unnerving the first time. I haven’t bent a spanner for a few years now and I’ve allowed my licence to expire for this last year of ‘enjoyment’.
From LAC to SAC for rigga’s you had to pass Hangar familiarisation, some classroom maths and a sort of H&S practical and a trade test…a bit of metal bashing.
From SAC we had to pass the “Science ‘B’” (a self-study maths and physics programme) to qualify for fitter’s course selection…and assessments of course.
From JT to Cpl we had to pass “Prom-Ex 2” which entailed studying sections of MAFL and ADMIN books with allocated SNCO’s as our guides and mentor’s …and assessments again, of course.
Time Promotion was ended in 1982, the year before my time to Cpl, and I was on Duty Airman in Laarbruch’s Guardroom on the day I should have been promoted - However, I did get my tapes a few months later.
Yes, Civilian Rigga’s life: As an LAE I taxied an ATR72, backing it out of one slot and over to a new slot in Jersey Airport…a bit unnerving the first time. I haven’t bent a spanner for a few years now and I’ve allowed my licence to expire for this last year of ‘enjoyment’.