SNCO(ATC) ATC OFFICER Pay

[lostit26]

Just a quick question.

Just been looking at the RAF Careers website and wondering why the starting pay for SNCO(ATC) is so much higher than that of an Air Traffic Control Officer. SNCO is £32,750 and officer £29,580. It just seems it should be the other way around to me.

 

[vim_fuego]

What officer rank is that pay scale against?

 

[lostit26]

What officer rank is that pay scale against?

I'D think its Pilot Officer as it says Air Traffic Control Officer £29,580 after training and the SNCO(ATC) says £32,750 Pay after training

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

Its due to direct entry. Go straight in at Sgt, where's officer starts at bottom. The officer cadre will soon pass you on pay in first few years.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lostit26]

Thanks guys, I was going to join RAF Regt but due to a few personal reasons ie I beat a pedophile up 5 years ago it wasn't possible until the conviction became spent. So whilst waiting I got myself some qualifications that allows me entry as an officer. I'm trying to figure out the best path to choose that will give me the best experience to carry over to civvi life when I leave the RAF after what I hope to be a fairly long career

 

[Spearmint]

Correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick here. As far as I know, what you learn as an 'Air Tragic-er' in the RAF, isn't readily transferable to the Civvy world. If that is of course your plan.

 

[lostit26]

Correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick here. As far as I know, what you learn as an 'Air Tragic-er' in the RAF, isn't readily transferable to the Civvy world. If that is of course your plan.

Sorry my explanation was crap. I am looking for a role that is transferable to civvy street and whilst doing so I came across the two roles I posted about (not wanting to go into either) and just thought it strange the pay for the two seemed the wrong way around to me so thought I'd just ask why this was. Sorry for the confusion

 

[TheSaintsGoMarchingIn]

Id say dont mention the conviction until asked as well.

 

[Joe_90]

I'd say do mention the conviction because when it comes out later if it is a bar to recruitment you'll have wasted everyone's time including your own. In fact the initial application probably asks for it anyway.

I hope I never have to work with you either Saints. With integrity like that how can anyone trust anything you say or do?

 

[lostit26]

I'd say do mention the conviction because when it comes out later if it is a bar to recruitment you'll have wasted everyone's time including your own. In fact the initial application probably asks for it anyway.

I went through the application last year Joe_90 and I mentioned the conviction, but it was only decided after my AST that I couldn't continue with my application. I was told at the time that as soon as the conviction becomes spent, which is February of next year, that I could and should resume my application as I had a very high score in my AST and impressed at my interview.

I totally agree that letting the recruiters at the AFCO everything about yourself is the best way to go about things, but they did say as soon as the conviction becomes spent there is no need for me to mention it. Also I was told that I wouldn't have to do my AST again but they may change as I now have the qualifications to go in as an officer. So I'm wondering if there may be a different test for the role.