• Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

TG1 goodbye Chf Tech

ady eflog

Harrier Mafia
1000+ Posts
1,264
46
48
Big problem with that scenario is if you have to introduce this RAF wide for parity and fairness then non TG1 Sgts would jump OR7 and go straight to WO2. Imo that would be a terrible mistake, being a FS prepares you for the J1 issues you get when managing 50+ people, you can 'hit the ground running if you then manage 100+ at WO (1 or 2) level.
But all they are doing is rebadging, a WO2 is still a FS doing the FS role in TG1. The rest of the air force are just on parity with a chief. (As they should be)
 

4everAD

Sergeant
864
57
28
But all they are doing is rebadging, a WO2 is still a FS doing the FS role in TG1. The rest of the air force are just on parity with a chief. (As they should be)
So what you're saying is a TG1 FS is equivalent to a WO2 but every other FS isn't? What makes them special? Answer, nothing its just convenient to try and stop TG1 Techies leave. The only way to square your arguement is that they have been CT so served their time as an OR7 so by default the next rank after CT should be WO2? If that's the case then every other FS in the RAF who hits OR8 pay should also be promoted to WO2 at that time?
 

Downsizer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
6,966
154
63
As I said further upthread there was a massive difference in ability on my AMLC between FSs who were ex-CTs and those who promoted to FS straight from Sgt. The extra 3-4-5 years really showed and was noticeable.

Barring a few exceptions.
 

4everAD

Sergeant
864
57
28
As I said further upthread there was a massive difference in ability on my AMLC between FSs who were ex-CTs and those who promoted to FS straight from Sgt. The extra 3-4-5 years really showed and was noticeable.

Barring a few exceptions.
Understood, so my point about non-TG1 FS's who have 6 years seniority stands alongside your assertion. This has to be the fairest scenario RAF wide: TG1 automatically get WO2 along with non TG1 FS's with 6 years seniority. Works for me (literally)!
 

Barch

Grim Reaper 2016
1000+ Posts
4,032
405
83
I will explain how I see it in a different way.

All current Flight Sergeants are 'promoted' to WO2. (OR8)

The following day all current Chief Technicians are 'promoted' to Flight Sergeant. (OR7)

After that, technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

And, non-technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

The only anomaly across the ranks would be the Air Specialist 2 (Technician). This could quite easily be sorted by giving them one stripe and renaming them Lance Corporal or maybe Senior Air Specialist. The rank would then be introduced to the non-technical trades giving equality of ranks throughout the RAF.
 
19
1
3
I will explain how I see it in a different way.

All current Flight Sergeants are 'promoted' to WO2. (OR8)

The following day all current Chief Technicians are 'promoted' to Flight Sergeant. (OR7)

After that, technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

And, non-technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

The only anomaly across the ranks would be the Air Specialist 2 (Technician). This could quite easily be sorted by giving them one stripe and renaming them Lance Corporal or maybe Senior Air Specialist. The rank would then be introduced to the non-technical trades giving equality of ranks throughout the RAF.

AS2 (aka LAC) dont exist anymore for TG1, they arrive as AS1's.

Tbh, i'm pretty p*ssed at this FRI thing. I've been watching everyone ahead of me in the pyramid get promoted after 3-4 years in rank, and now that i am just becoming eligible to move up again, they have a retention scheme which will no doubt see people above me stay, and a promotion freeze happen again. Nice on.....

When I was promoted, i was low 50's in the numbers, now were taking up to 200! (Mech Cpl) Yes, those who just turned up to work, put hardly effort in are now being promoted. We'll leave this here, because it'll turn into a rant...

Promotion to Flt Sgt? Has no effect if there is no movement at the top, its just a badge change and doesn't change the price of fish. If i was a Chf Tech, i'd like to remain as one....it's clearly a rank which not many trades can get into, and one that should be cherished..
 
Last edited:
91
8
8
I will explain how I see it in a different way.

All current Flight Sergeants are 'promoted' to WO2. (OR8)

The following day all current Chief Technicians are 'promoted' to Flight Sergeant. (OR7)

After that, technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

And, non-technical trade Sergeants are promoted to Flight Sergeant following the normal promotion criteria.

The only anomaly across the ranks would be the Air Specialist 2 (Technician). This could quite easily be sorted by giving them one stripe and renaming them Lance Corporal or maybe Senior Air Specialist. The rank would then be introduced to the non-technical trades giving equality of ranks throughout the RAF.
I think his is the right and fair way. I was a CT (ex AD, ex EngTechEL)TG4 when the Chief rank was binned. Then Chiefs were just abandoned. I was promoted to Sgt in '93 then to CT in 2003, so plenty of experience as a SNCO, but Sgt ex-TG11 were being promted to FS over Chiefs. One of the main reasons I left.

I worked with the Army a lot as a Sgt and CT. The Army bods struggeld with Chief rank and I was often called 'Staff'. Unfornuatley the general Army bods saw SSgts as an equivalent to CT/FS. They were actually miles apart and thakfully the TOTs, FOS's and Yeomans did realise the difference.
 

Cornish_Pikey

Sergeant
604
147
43
As I said further upthread there was a massive difference in ability on my AMLC between FSs who were ex-CTs and those who promoted to FS straight from Sgt. The extra 3-4-5 years really showed and was noticeable.

Barring a few exceptions.
3-4-5 years a Chief. as if, not many did that few years before being picked up for FS.

I managed 5 and a half years before realising I didn't want to become a grumpy FS.

Loved asking Staff Sergeants how long they'd been a Flight Sergeant. They'd get proper wound up.
 

Downsizer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
6,966
154
63
3-4-5 years a Chief. as if, not many did that few years before being picked up for FS.

I managed 5 and a half years before realising I didn't want to become a grumpy FS.

Loved asking Staff Sergeants how long they'd been a Flight Sergeant. They'd get proper wound up.

It was only an example of time mate, I realise it took most longer (less so these days I suspect).
 

Rigga

Licensed Aircraft Engineer
1000+ Posts
Licensed A/C Eng
2,157
120
63
There will be a new page on Faceache:- "I was a C/T in the RAF" (You saw it here first!)

TG1 never had anything close to parity with their civvy aircraft engineer rates. The previous RAF pay system was, I believe, based on the 'size of contribution to society' and, as such, if binmen were the same contribution to society as TG1 then TG1 would be compared to binmen's rates. (It wasn't binmen!)

However, the degradation of technical ranks in the RAF will reduce the identification of particular needs and personnel in different situations. The Navy wears its trades on their sleeves and the Army has coloured hats and badges! The reversal of creating SAC Techs is an example of how tech trade insignia is needed to avoid 'capability' catastrophes. I would therefore assume that a new FS Tech and possibly a WO2 Tech will emerge from this proposal!
 

UlsterExile

Sergeant
955
75
28
I'm no techie, but worked with more than my fair share and have some very good friends who are techies. I am not sure how this will work but it will certainly p&ss a lot of people off. Having worked with both the Navy and AAC, the RAF are leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to fixing aircraft etc (very loose term). Why are we bowing to pressure from the other two services who know little when it comes to fixing aircraft. We would not dream of telling them how to run a ship or use an infantry battalion.

I get the C/T - FS is wrong when you are cross basing ranks and needs addressing. How we get round that I'm not sure but I would not want to see the C/T rank or FS rank disappear its out heritage and should be protected. Maybe the Army need educated!!!!!!

I do remember turning up at an Army run course in NI in Early 93, when asked the question what rank I was it was blurted out before i could answer that i was a Chinook pilot as i had 3 blades on each shoulder!!!!!!!! Lasted most of the week, till some AAC S/Sgt turned up!!!!!
 
Top