Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Air Land or Sea

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
Humble Scribe said:
Possibly because we train the administrator first & the solidier second (or have done until recently) whilst the army will always be soldier first. Also our IT system was far advanced from the army, and we have some magnificent trainers at SOFA![/QUOTE]

Having spent 4 years there at Halton & SP, I totally concur with that comment. May have gone downhill since my departure though...........(lol)!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
busbyboy said:
Fair point, however the idea is to maintain equivalency for our people in the joint arena which, believe me, is essential for all sorts of reasons. I don't think it matters one way or another (although I clearly hope I'm wrong), but I fear it will happen anyway. Just a suggestion to overcome the difficulties.
Click to expand...

I was listening to the Trade Sponsor give a briefing at a course at South Park and he said that that was one of the challenges he faces.
 
True Blue Jack said:
So List II trades would go from Sgt to WO2 without stopping at FS in the middle? And a Chf Tech would be subordinate to an Army SSgt but would wear the same rank insignia? That sounds even more confusing than the system we have at the moment.

Under your scheme everyone would be an NCO on completing 12 months service and passing TATs. In the shiney world that would be great but compare a Regt Sqn with an infantry battalion, or MTDs with their RLC equivalents and I'm afraid you have caused as many problems as you have solved.

There are just too many other differences that have to be resolved first. Stretching a full Army/RN career to 37 years is happening but they are sensibly doing it over a long period of time - otherwise you would have a glut of 30-year old WOs blocking promotion for 25 years which would cause a black hole from which they may never recover. The way they are doing it will slow down their promotion but it will be another 5 years before we see the effects of that.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say that RAF ranks would go from Sgt to WO2. There would be no Chf Techs, just FS, which is the same as a SSgt as far as I recall (OR7...ugh). Your 2nd para is your point of view, which is equally as valid as mine - but perhaps you could elaborate on the the problems you are referring to? It is good that the Army (in particular) and Navy are looking at stretching some of their careers out to age 55 - for non-teeth arms in the Army anyway - but it will be a long time before there is anything resembling parity of treatment without rank. And that takes me back to the bottom line, we need to look after OUR people, not worry about what the Army and Navy are doing. Until we do so, I fear this problem will only get worse. If I am wrong, then I will happy to be so. I only have (y)our best interests at heart, since it is all academic for me now.
 
busbyboy said:
. And that takes me back to the bottom line, we need to look after OUR people, not worry about what the Army and Navy are doing. Until we do so, I fear this problem will only get worse. If I am wrong, then I will happy to be so. I only have (y)our best interests at heart, since it is all academic for me now.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that the trade is in good hands at the moment and that we are looking after OUR people. Busbyboy, I think I know that you know the politics that go on at cmd level, as do I from my humble position. I think that we should let the Trade Sponsor get on with his work; I have heard some good briefings recently and, in all my years of Service, it is the first time I have noted that the TS has some backbone to him.
 
KingGuin said:
FN that may be so but I hope that backbone doesn't break due to the strain of it's current workload.
Click to expand...

I think that the TS is made of strong stuff, but I know the bloke that he works with and I know that he supports him as well. Having 2 x WOs in there can only help.
 
ForgottenName said:
I think that the TS is made of strong stuff, but I know the bloke that he works with and I know that he supports him as well. Having 2 x WOs in there can only help.
Click to expand...

FN, I hope that you are right, but experience (34.5 yrs) says otherwise. I will be very happy to be proved wrong.
 
Bringing things back on thread.


After being sent to sea with RAF Harriers embarking on HMS Illustrious in June to July 1994 as part of a feasibility trial, I dug out my signing on papers to find out if I really should be going to work in a big tin tub.

In them, it stated that I would be liable for service by air, land or sea.

When I find the exact words, I will post them.


regards.

TW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top