Interesting point about the USAF. My brother in law served with them and I had a 5 years start over his service and he still beat me into the mess. - I never got there. stalled at CPL. Nothing wrong with me or the many who got stuck!

Roadster your pay scale isn't familiar to me I am afraid, we had differnt scales in the RAF and JT aircraft technicians were in payband 1, then they were sub divided by trade groups, riggers, sooties, leckies etc were TG 1, the scale was sliding with 1 being the highest and it went down as low as TG 16 (I think) TG 16 used to include, pen pushers, cooks, MT drivers, coppers and rock apes ect.
You were payed accordingly and no matter if you were a full NCO or not TG 1 JT's were payed more.
It was a simple reflection of the trade training you had recieved, your experience and your level of responsibility (unsupervised flight safety issues etc).
When compared to many other trades the consequences for making a mistake were considerably higher and your training and pay reflected this.
Remember that unless an apprentice (3 years intense trg) JT'S had to have passed basic training, initial trade trg (7-9 months) followed by five or six years (average) as a mechanic SAC, before being selected for fitters course if assessments were good enough.
Fitters courses for the different trades ranged from the minimum of 11 months upto 18 months approx, where you finished with an industry recognised engineering qualification.
Then and only then were you a JT.
Many of the NCO'S in other trades used to find themselves at the rank of CPL after just a few short years, when on a Cpl's course the techies generally used to be far more experienced and older than all of their course mates from other trades.

Totally agree Jayand

Additionally there were RAF apprentices that passed out as JT after 3 years (Dual trade Airframe Engines) and were promoted to CPL after one.....

The other was the supertech who passed out after 5 years with (4 or 5 trades.. Airframe, Engines, Electrics and Radio I think ) and was passed out a Cpl on leaving training...

We were all trade group 1 and the highest paid trade group in the RAF... Avionics etc was trade group 2 and a JT was on more than a corporal in some of the lower trades, they used to publish the paybands for all to see.

Forget,

Marksmen never got paid anything in my time, or I'd have gone for it.

As for the 'fortune', 1956 was a very significant year.

In the Febuary I completed my fitters course and became a J/T. At April 1st we had an extremely large pay rise and by the Aug I was a Cpl.

So I went from an SAC on 11/- a day to being a Cpl in an advanced trade on I believe it was 24/6 a day, all in 6 months :cool:

Similar system as the Army for technicians, but you could be either an apprentice or adult entry. Leave training (12-18mos) as LCpl. Difference in length of training due to specialism, and HGV driving course. Promote Cpl after 1 year and award of class II. Not sure if the RAF had this, but 3 years after being promoted Cpl, attend year-long Class I course. Promote Sgt on completion, 5 years after leaving initial training.

I've looked into the pay rates, but it's all changed with the advent of Pay 2000. Last I could find was the AFPRB report for 2001 when Pay 2000 was introduced.

Office of Manpower Economics - AFPRB reports

Page 48 of the 2001/2 report shows a table of salaries (cross service) but based on Army ranks. There is a footnote under the table indicating that RN & RAF equivalent ranks were used for reference purposes, and where no equivalent rank existed (JT, for example), a formula was used. I would imagine that a JT would get a fixed percentage of another reference point. Say 97% of LCpl or 110% of Private.

I wasn't a LCpl very long (see above), but I do recall comparing pay statements with JTs in the bar, and there was a slight difference (in the Army's favour). We put this down to the NCO aspect of it, and moved on to laughing at RAFP LAC Acting (Unpaid) Cpls.

Wonders of Google. From RAF Bridgnorth site.

RAF Bridgnorth - Memories of the RAF Station

Now, if the shinies have neglected to pay me; with compound interest from 1961 - hmmm. Anyone in Records? I'll split it with you.

An NCO is considered to be anyone of the NATO grade OR-3 or above.

- L/Cpl is OR-3.

- JT, SAC(T), SAC and LAC are OR-2.

Therefore a L/Cpl outranks a JT, quite simple really. It has nothing to do with pay packets, my mate in the Shag and Shuffle said or time served.

If an untermensch supplier can figure it out..........:ugh:

THS,

Doesn't this simply show that the 'system' is wrong?

No.

Its shows that JT is what it is, an advancement based on technical ability, whilst it shows that L/Cpl is an advancement based on the ability to lead.

Why is it wrong? RAF Techies rarely step out of the Techie world, so their structure works for them. The RAF Regt are using practices and procedures that are Army-biased for obvious reasons, so they have adapted to show the levels of responsibility between that of SAC and Cpl. There isn't 100% parity across the 3 Services, but those differences are part of why there are 3 Services.

Tell that to the SH guys.

Actually I would disagree, no one get's promoted without the gumption to be able to lead, no matter how badly.....


Out of interest what rank did this "super Rock" previously hold, as he was not a corporal, one assumes he (or she) was just another SAC, but one in charge of fellow SAC's, in that case it makes a lot of sense, one hopes though that it is a proper rank I.e not one of these here is a strip to give you the authority, but you won't get a penny for it jobbies.....

Agree with THS.

I have huge respect for the training that JTs do, and having done 2 flying sqn tours, I am glad I don't have to change an engine at 0330 in Norway. A JT demonstrates self management, maturity, patience, reliability, diligence and thoroughness. A L/Cpl demonstrates the ability to organise to an unhealthy degree, to keep discipline, to motivate (by the boot if need be), to know when to crack the whip and when to offer an ear, and to get scared, tired and hungry men to do unnatural things.

Perhaps the rank would have long term benefits. Making the larger than normal transition from Tom to full blown NCO is something that is needlessly difficult (its the biggest promotion leap) for the least experienced servicmen. Given the deployed nature of their roles, I wonder why TSW, TCW, MCSU etc don't also have the rank, although I hope the RAF doesn't decide to use it across the board as a cost cutting measure by stifling the promotion flow to Cpl. Although of course, where the Regt leads, the RAF does tend to follow. ;)

(Forget - You probably still need that badge in Woodston or Dogsthorpe don't you?)

I always thought that the SAC rank was stretched a little far. I spent ten years as one (I'm not a particular doofus, that was fairly average for TG13 in my day) and the skills and knowledge I possessed had grown massively in that time, not to mention my own maturity especially when considering I joined at barely seventeen.
It wasn't an enormous problem when working within my own section as my bosses knew and could obviously differentiate their bods experience but as soon as my duties took me outside that role I'd be back in the mix as just another erk. A middle rank between airman and Cpl would have allowed the more capable airman to be identified easily.

I said rarely. As a %-age of total techies, SH are a minority.

I think I answered that one on page 1, TSW etc don't operate in fire teams or sections within infantry platoons as the Regiment do. The Lance Corporal rank was brought in to allow what would have been a senior SAC to command a fire team of 4-6 SACs and for there to be no doubt (visually and otherwise) who was in charge of that team.

Being deployed isn't really relevant, for the rest of the RAF the existing rank structure works just fine, at home or abroad.

Didn't something called the 'X factor' once differentiate the 1-5 trade groups from the rest?
I believe comparisons were made between the tech. tradesmen/women abilities and their civilan counterpart, pay was based on this and increased accordingly. Before that happened I went from cpl to cpl/tech purely to get the 10/6 a week increase in pay!
Someone mentioned the RAF's inability to manage the tech trades.
As an example of that there was a time when promotion meant passing a tech. board, a question paper plus gaining 1-3 specialist qualifications. Eventually, to gain a promotion, passing an 'Objective Questions' based paper and serving time in current rank was all that was required. Consequently, some years later, Ch/Techs were 'ten a penny' (my Tech E & I Officer's comment) and the RAF paid them substantial sums to take early retirement. Many did so, including me!
Apologies for thread drift.
As for the RAF Regiment adopting L/cpl rank, I'm surprised it took so long to do it. Good luck to them.

Hi '72,

Sure - but the army doesn't just use it for Inf.

RLC = TSW
Sigs = TCW etc?

Its a different RAF today, than just 10 years ago. It does require more leadership and initiative across the board - and where better to nurture it, than with the leaders of tomorrow?

What's this word 'payed'. I can't always follow threads when I see foreign words. It has to be foreign as the chances of misspelling a four letter word are pretty low. Could someone work it out for me?

Not getting at you goudie. There are many before you. :)

There's always the "Leading Apprentice" Chevron from the Apprentice Entrance Scheme - the forerunner to the JT Scheme?

http://www.britairforce.com/images/r...k_app_lead.jpg

Maybe another source of confusion??

A dyslexic moment,:confused: now corrected, Forget. Well spotted:ok: