SAC (Tech)

[Oberon305]

I've been out a while, when did this SAC(Tech) thinggy come in and did away with JT?

About 4-5 years ago I think......still some JT's left mind you!

 

[mad_collie]

No....


"Ranks are shown in ascending order." So a SAC "Technician" is a higher rank thank a SAC "non-technician", since when?

The clue is in the 'technician'. All technician ranks are superior to ordinary ranks. SAC Technician is not quite as superior as Junior Technician, but still superior to a normal SAC.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

If I remember correctly, Jnr Techs were OR3 - they used to get the same rates of allowances as Cpl (LOA etc).

Yes they did (which used to annoy me), but JTs are still classed as OR - 2 - which is why the increased LOA used to annoy me! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Rigga]

Forgive me for interrupting, but even to me - who left the RAF some years ago - surely those SACs without "Technician" status are either:
a. not of a technical trade or,
b. they're "Mechanics"?


..and Technicians 'overrule' Mechanics purely on that trade status, if not in a disciplinary way.

its a bit like a new pilot and a qualified one.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Forgive me for interrupting, but even to me - who left the RAF some years ago - surely those SACs without "Technician" status are either:
a. not of a technical trade or,
b. they're "Mechanics"?


..and Technicians 'overrule' Mechanics purely on that trade status, if not in a disciplinary way.

its a bit like a new pilot and a qualified one.

Not true, when I joined I was classed as a non-Q-OPS Technician. I was on high payband and was on the same pay scale as the JTs. The difference was as a non Q-OPS SAC I could not get past Pay band 6. pay band 7 -9 was reserved for JTs and SAC(T).

I suppose you could argue that to all intents and purposes a non Q-OPS SAC was a mechanic. however, unlike mechanics we had completed our technicians training, thereby only requiring the NVQ and Modern Apprenticeship to gain the Q-OPS award and become an SAC(T).

I believe new breed Armourers now leave Cosford on the low pay band - it appears that the oversight has now been corrected!! DT_Xtremez_14:

Obviously, AMMs are a completely different kettle of fish!

 

[Rigga]

Not true, when I joined I was classed as a non-Q-OPS Technician. I was on high payband and was on the same pay scale as the JTs. The difference was as a non Q-OPS SAC I could not get past Pay band 6. pay band 7 -9 was reserved for JTs and SAC(T).

I suppose you could argue that to all intents and purposes a non Q-OPS SAC was a mechanic. however, unlike mechanics we had completed our technicians training, thereby only requiring the NVQ and Modern Apprenticeship to gain the Q-OPS award and become an SAC(T).

I believe new breed Armourers now leave Cosford on the low pay band - it appears that the oversight has now been corrected!! DT_Xtremez_14:

Obviously, AMMs are a completely different kettle of fish!

Monty,
I think you're confusing trade groups with ranks - the difference being that Q-Ops (Sorry, I dont know what that is) being a trade that, evidently, is not classed (in RAF terms) as a technical trade and therefore doesn't have technical ranks.
I don't mean to insult you, or your trade, but its the way the RAF has set it up - maybe yours is the exception to the rule?

In simple terms, the earlier Link to the RAF Ranks Scale shows that an SAC(T) is, in some way, senior to a 'mere' SAC, albeit by a hair's breadth.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Monty,
I think you're confusing trade groups with ranks - the difference being that Q-Ops (Sorry, I dont know what that is) being a trade that, evidently, is not classed (in RAF terms) as a technical trade and therefore doesn't have technical ranks.
I don't mean to insult you, or your trade, but its the way the RAF has set it up - maybe yours is the exception to the rule?

In simple terms, the earlier Link to the RAF Ranks Scale shows that an SAC(T) is, in some way, senior to a 'mere' SAC, albeit by a hair's breadth.

Q-OPS isn't a trade mate. It stands for Qualified Operational Performance Standard. It means you are classed by the RAF as a fully qualified Technician and are henceforth promoted to the rank of SAC(T). It doesn't make you 'senior' it just means you have completed your training and differentiates you as a fully qualified tradesman (a bit like JT used to!)

I was an Armourer, TG 1, so trust me I know very well the vagrancies of the technical world! The system I followed when I joined up no longer exists, LAC W techs now pass out of Cosford on the lower payband unfortunately!

 

[True Blue Jack]

In simple terms, the earlier Link to the RAF Ranks Scale shows that an SAC(T) is, in some way, senior to a 'mere' SAC, albeit by a hair's breadth.

That link does appear to show that, but it is wrong. The best reference is AP3376 Vol 1 (on the intranet, RAF Publications Library, under Branch and Trade Matters if you have trouble sleeping).

It shows that in List 1 trades only, SAC(T) is awarded to an airman who has achieved the 'Operational Performance Standard', hence Q-OPS. SAC(T) is not senior in rank to SAC, just more qualified.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

That link does appear to show that, but it is wrong. The best reference is AP3376 Vol 1 (on the intranet, RAF Publications Library, under Branch and Trade Matters if you have trouble sleeping).

It shows that in List 1 trades only, SAC(T) is awarded to an airman who has achieved the 'Operational Performance Standard', hence Q-OPS. SAC(T) is not senior in rank to SAC, just more qualified.

Echo, echo, echo ... DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[True Blue Jack]

Echo, echo, echo ... DT_Xtremez_14:

I am ashamed and embarrassed that an ex-plumber types faster than I do. DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[PVRisthefuture]

When I was last on JPA as a JT, I was OR3. I cannot tell you what an SAC(T) is, but if an SAC is OR2, then even JPA recognises the higher rank of SAC(T) and JT.