Flight Officer revamp -- what if?

Started by supertigerCH, August 15, 2014, 06:33:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheTravelingAirman

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 19, 2014, 04:56:33 PM
The Air Force probably eliminated the rank of Sergeant (E-4) to be more in line with the other services (Army, Marine Corps) where Sergeant is E-5. They could've renamed the rank to corporal, but it really makes no difference. It also eliminates unneeded complexities. A SrA who has completed ALS can still be a supervisor. An experienced SrA can also perform the duties of MTI, MTL, Tech School Instructor, etc. The elimination of Sgt (E-4) did not affect the Air Force in any negative way. Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

The only people I know that find the change odd are those who served prior to this change, which occurred over two decades old ago. Prior to 1967, when the Air Force had the ranks of Airman Third Class and Second Class, an Airman First Class was an E-4. It wasn't until 1967 that Airman First Class was rename Sergeant (E-4) and Airman Second Class was renamed to Airman First Class (E-3). The split of E-4 into SrA and Sgt didn't occur until 1975. I bet some found those changes "goofy" at the time.

It is no longer the case that SrA may act as MTI, MTL, etc. MTI is Tech and above (may be an exception for exceptional SSG with line no. for TSG. Anyone currently occupying a slot without meeting the new requirements stays, but is replaced by someone who does meet them). MTL and the various instructor duties are locked at SSgt and above. The various complaints of sexual assault and unprofessional relationships have changed AETC a lot. AETC already wasn't fun, so thank the powers that be I won't return anytime soon. Or ever.

Shuman 14

Quote from: CyBorg on August 18, 2014, 07:53:17 PM
I just looked at them on VG's site.

Really, I think having the "CAP" on them is a bit redundant and detracts from the overall attractiveness of the insignia.

If it would have simply had the full-colour triangle/prop in the centre...a little more work, maybe, but could not be mistaken for the AF.



Of course, it would likely not meet the criteria for "distinctiveness" for someone viewing a satellite image of a hi-res zoom-in on a CAP NCO's arm...

I agree.
Joseph J. Clune
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police

USMCR: 1990 - 1992                           USAR: 1993 - 1998, 2000 - 2003, 2005 - Present     CAP: 2013 - 2014, 2021 - Present
INARNG: 1992 - 1993, 1998 - 2000      Active Army: 2003 - 2005                                       USCGAux: 2004 - Present

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: TheTravelingAirman on August 20, 2014, 01:57:56 PM
It is no longer the case that SrA may act as MTI, MTL, etc. MTI is Tech and above (may be an exception for exceptional SSG with line no. for TSG. Anyone currently occupying a slot without meeting the new requirements stays, but is replaced by someone who does meet them). MTL and the various instructor duties are locked at SSgt and above. The various complaints of sexual assault and unprofessional relationships have changed AETC a lot. AETC already wasn't fun, so thank the powers that be I won't return anytime soon. Or ever.

That is a good move on behalf of AETC.  As I said, my MTI was a SrA and not much more than a playground bully.  It was beyond the "standard TI games" of "I'm gonna recycle you back to your grandfather's flight!", and garden variety things like that.

I do not remember how many of my flight he ended up sending to Wilford Hall, but I know there were several, and he seemed to take some sort of perverse pride in it.

In contrast, my training superintendent was a Master Sergeant (and the punk SrA did not try any of his little games when the Master Sergeant was around) and he spoke with AU-THOR-I-TAYY.  He was a big black fellow with .00000001% body fat and a James Earl Jones Voice Of Doom.  Nonetheless most of us respected him.  He knew his stuff, and he didn't have to advertise it.

Quote from: Panache on August 20, 2014, 11:41:04 AM
Back when I was in the Army, we had one Corporal in the entire barracks building.  Every other E-4 (myself included) was a Specialist.

The Army should either rename or redefine that rank.  Like I said earlier, my dad was one of the earliest Specialist 4's.  He had been a hard-stripe Corporal in the National Guard but when he went active duty he got reclassified as a Specialist 4 (this was in 1957).  It suited him fine because he just wanted to do his job and not be overmuch involved in the supervisory role of an NCO.

In the early '80s my ex-brother-in-law got shifted from Specialist 5 to Buck Sergeant.  I don't know how he did that as I was only about 15 at the time, but he had uniform sets with both insignia.  When the "suntans(?)" got phased out for the green shirts he gave me a lot of his old ones (remove insignia and hey presto, nice, casual short-sleeved shirt).  I think he had the option of being promoted to Specialist 6, but as I say that was a long time ago and it's been decades since I've seen him so I could well have rectal cranial inversion on the matter.

So, in the Army, a Specialist is actually a "Generalist" anymore, from what I know.

And that one Corporal had authority over all you Specialists.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011