I joined CAP officially in early June and completed Level I, and have earned the membership ribbon.
I am 18 years old so right now I am classified as SMWOG. I am pretty new, and I have been at events with cadets from around the New England area, and my unit commander has had to remind cadets several times that I am a senior member. However, instead of being addressed as Senior Member Fairfield or simply as Ma'am or Miss, the unit commander has instructed cadets to address me as a Flight Officer, even though I don't think I am eligible for promotion until September. I have completed all the requirements for FO promotion but there is a 3-month time-in-grade requirement for promotion.
Thoughts?
The proper term of address for you today is "Senior Member", or "Ma'am". Referring to you as "Flight Officer" is not correct by the letter of the reg, but not exactly a big deal in the Grande Scheme®.
What Eclipse said. To throw in my own 2 Kopeek, since the period is so short between SM and FO, it may have been done to not confuse the cadets. Of course the proper term most used will still be Ma'am.
For a slick-sleeved senior member, "Mister," "Miss" or "Mrs." is fine. That's how we'd address flight officers (you don't address someone as "Flight Officer Smith"). Difference is, you have no grade whatsoever. "Senior member" isn't a grade; it's a membership type. Of course, that will change.
Again, Eclipse and I disagree. What a surprise.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 01, 2012, 06:48:47 AMyou don't address someone as "Flight Officer Smith".
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
Yeah, I was told that FO, TFO, and SFO can still be addressed by their rank.
Here's another question: I was told that only Senior Members ranked 2Lt and higher demand a salute by cadets, and that any Flight Officer rank does not need to be saluted by cadets. True or false?
Quote from: Rachel F on July 01, 2012, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
Yeah, I was told that FO, TFO, and SFO can still be addressed by their rank.
Here's another question: I was told that only Senior Members ranked 2Lt and higher demand a salute by cadets, and that any Flight Officer rank does not need to be saluted by cadets. True or false?
False. Flight officers are afforded the same C&C as 2nd Lt and higher.
It sounds like you have some leaders with a misunderstanding of the program.
Quote from: Rachel F on July 01, 2012, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
Yeah, I was told that FO, TFO, and SFO can still be addressed by their rank.
Here's another question: I was told that only Senior Members ranked 2Lt and higher demand a salute by cadets, and that any Flight Officer rank does not need to be saluted by cadets. True or false?
Flight
Officer. The grade earns a salute.
Sir or Ma'am is never an inappropriate greeting, regardless of grade.
It's simple common courtesy, just like you were taught as a child.
Rachel F, being a Flight Officer is an interesting "in between" for Cadets and Seniors. Be preared to be called a cadet by a few unkowing members and to be asked questions of "what the heck are you?" kinda thing. Are you in a leadership position within the squadron?
Tip: Keep track of all professional development and time in grade while being a Flight Officer. National does not keep track of this for you, sadly. Keeping a personnel record for you is not just the squadron's responsibility. From your original post, sounds like you are on the ball with professional development. Good luck.
PM me if I can be of any assistance to you.
Yes, I recently staffed an airshow and a bunch of cadets called me by my last name, and a few even called me "Cadet". I had to correct them, but fortunately all of the adults knew that I was a senior member. Even my own squadron's C/Capt called me by my last name before getting a reminder from the Unit Commander that I am a Senior Member.
I am a little confused. If the Unit Commander introduces me as a Flight Officer should I be wearing the FO insignia?
Your unit CC is doing that as a matter of his convenience, but until you are properly promoted to that grade, no, you should not wear it.
Why not just correct him and move on?
Quote from: Flight Officer on July 01, 2012, 08:25:47 PM
Rachel F, being a Flight Officer is an interesting "in between" for Cadets and Seniors.
Actually...it's not between. Flight Officers are Senior Members who are senior to SMWOG but Junior to 2dLt and above in the manner where customs and courtesies involved. Some FO's might actually be in appointed positions that oversee "Senior" Officers
Correct - there is no categorical distinction between an 18 year old FO and a 50 year old Lt Col.
Both are "Senior Members", and there is no duty or posting which is prohibited from the 18 year old.
The could be unit, group, or wing CC's, encampment CC's, mission pilots, the works.
One exception: Test Control Officers and Test Administrators must be at least 21 years old. Ref: CAPR50-4, para 1-2 and 1-3.
No idea why.
And you must be 21 to drive some CAP vehicles....and with cadet pax.
The FO is definatly a "gray" area that exists between cadets and seniors......yes, yes, yes...they are all seniors....but if NHQ really cared about them....they would track their promotions. 8)
True enough on the above. Apparently there's more risk to driving a vehicle than being a wing cc.
Quote from: Rachel F on July 01, 2012, 10:42:17 PM
Yes, I recently staffed an airshow and a bunch of cadets called me by my last name, and a few even called me "Cadet". I had to correct them, but fortunately all of the adults knew that I was a senior member. Even my own squadron's C/Capt called me by my last name before getting a reminder from the Unit Commander that I am a Senior Member.
It's unfortunate that this happened; your commander and others such as the unit leadership officer and/or the deputy commander for cadets should ensure that, as part of normal leadership training, cadets can identify all senior members and flight officers. At the risk of turning this into a uniform forum may I assume you're wearing an appropriate uniform so that you can be easily identified as a senior member?
Quote
I am a little confused. If the Unit Commander introduces me as a Flight Officer should I be wearing the FO insignia?
Nope - wait the three months; it goes by quickly!
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 10:47:16 PM
Your unit CC is doing that as a matter of his convenience, but until you are properly promoted to that grade, no, you should not wear it.
True enough!
As a side note there are at least one or two longtime members here in Captalk who are either current or former residents of your fine state. I'm sure they'll be happy to assist you here on these forums. Welcome aboard!
All,
It was a matter of convenience at an event with well over 200 cadets in attendance, that needed to be resolved immediately. Eclipse, I am well aware of the program and how it works. I take very good care of the people in my unit. If Miss Fairfield came away confused I accept full responsibility for being expedient in a situation that called for immediate corrective action. These questions were all addressed after the Airshow with my staff. Miss Fairfield has been fully briefed on what she needs to do and when by the unit Deputy for Seniors and Professional Development officer.
Lastly, Camas, my staff and I are perfectly capable of handling any question Miss Fairfield, or any of my members should have about CAP and if not, we know where to turn in our Wing. I have no problem referring people to subject matter experts, but I have little tolerance for supposed experts who wander into my unit offering advice to my folks uninvited.
Thank you
Hey guys,
I have been in contact with the PD officer for my squadron and had all my questions answered. Sorry about my confusion. I will definitely commit more time to reading CAP regulations!
Have a great Independence Day!
Quote from: TCMajor on July 04, 2012, 01:03:53 PM
All,
It was a matter of convenience at an event with well over 200 cadets in attendance, that needed to be resolved immediately. Eclipse, I am well aware of the program and how it works. I take very good care of the people in my unit. If Miss Fairfield came away confused I accept full responsibility for being expedient in a situation that called for immediate corrective action. These questions were all addressed after the Airshow with my staff. Miss Fairfield has been fully briefed on what she needs to do and when by the unit Deputy for Seniors and Professional Development officer.
Lastly, Camas, my staff and I are perfectly capable of handling any question Miss Fairfield, or any of my members should have about CAP and if not, we know where to turn in our Wing. I have no problem referring people to subject matter experts, but I have little tolerance for supposed experts who wander into my unit offering advice to my folks uninvited.
Thank you
"Matter of convenience" doesn't cut it. You're either following the regs or you aren't. Not following the regs at the airshow is probably NOT the lesson you were trying to teach to your cadets.
Remember, integrity is doing what's right, even when nobody is looking.
PHall,
You speak of integrity yet I see very little in your own post. Major Harbison spoke up, took responsibility for having created a situation where a new member was confused, and even stated that he had already spoken with his staff about the issue while at the air show. Where exactly is the breakdown in his integrity? You where not there and have no firsthand knowledge of the circumstances that Major Harbison found himself in.
Beyond that Major Harbison (and myself for that matter) sign our posts. We do not hide behind the anonymity offered by the internet to attack people's integrity whom we have never met. Other than you are from California I do not know who you are, what unit you are assigned to, or any way other than this forum to contact you. When he rights something he says who he is and what he does. He ensures that if you want to you can find him to discuss what he has said. He stands behind his words.
I have had the pleasure of working with Major Harbison closely over the last few years on a number of Cadet Programs activities here in NH. I consider him not only a colleague, but a close personal friend. He served his country for over 22 years in the United States Army, has raised four outstanding children and gives tirelessly to CAP. I have found him to have the highest levels integrity. To make a personal attack on him when you have never met him and to not then have the integrity to sign your post shows your level of integrity in my eyes.
Thank you.
Phall,
I trust you did not set out to actually challenge my integrity. I take that as a personal afront, from someone who does not know me or my squadron. I could have just sat in the background and said nothing and no one would have known that I was the cc in question. However I have never been one to hide from responsibilty. At the moment in question, it was a matter of correcting disrespectful behavior by cadets towards a senior member,and then proceeding with the mission. . I had no plan to have this SM be something she wasn't. If you wish to continue to challenge my integrety, my name, unlike yours, is directly below my post. The nature of your response is yet another reason why many people have turned away from this site.
Perhaps you shouldn't be taking it as an insult and making this something that it is not. As multiple people pointed out, there were a number of ways cadets SHOULD refer to a SM that do not involve using the incorrect title out of convenience. Learn and drive on.
Quote from: TCMajor on July 04, 2012, 01:03:53 PMI have no problem referring people to subject matter experts, but I have little tolerance for supposed experts who wander into my unit offering advice to my folks uninvited.
So, when someone posts a question here, no one answer it because they should have asked somewhere else, and that echelon will not like it.
The question was posted, answered, debated, dissected, and.. well.. sort of agreed on, in this case, in the way it usually happens on an internet forum.
Perhaps then it needs to be extended to members of the unit, "Do not go and post questions on internet forums. Ask us first. Our answer is always right."
Quote from: TCMajor on July 04, 2012, 06:37:31 PM
Phall,
I trust you did not set out to actually challenge my integrity. I take that as a personal afront, from someone who does not know me or my squadron. I could have just sat in the background and said nothing and no one would have known that I was the cc in question. However I have never been one to hide from responsibilty. At the moment in question, it was a matter of correcting disrespectful behavior by cadets towards a senior member,and then proceeding with the mission. . I had no plan to have this SM be something she wasn't. If you wish to continue to challenge my integrety, my name, unlike yours, is directly below my post. The nature of your response is yet another reason why many people have turned away from this site.
It was a "teachable moment" for the cadets, yet, by your own admission, you took an easy way out.
And yes, I would say what I said to your face sir.
And my screen name is my first initial and last name. I've never tried to hide my identity on this board.
Teachable moment in the middle of processing and screening 30,000 people into and out of an air show? I think not. You fix the issue in as prompt a manner as possible, then teach later. The issue at had was that cadets were not being respectful to the the adult member. Major Harbison addressed that issue and I am sure will follow up back at the squadron. We had a mission at hand that had to get done.
There is still no exscuse for questioning his integrity, and I for one would like to see an apology.
Posted from my cell phone, please forgive spelling or grammer issues.
Thank you.
On the contrary, the easy way out would have been to simply watch the disrespec continue to happen and do nothing. I made a correction. Regardless, you still have no right or basis to question my integrety as you have. As I said before, you don't know me, you don't know my unit, and you truly don't know the situation under which this happened.
OK, guys, let's cool off a bit here. This isn't the Great Internet Urinating Competition here.
All y'all have been around CAP for a while, as evidenced by all the bottle caps in the sigs. There are some differences of opinion here, partly based in situational involvement, and partly based on the regs. I think you need to step back and look at both sides of the argument and see that there is some correctness on each side.
The OP should not have been addressed as FO, since she was not one at the time. Saying otherwise just added unneeded confusion to the issue.
On the spot correction was also appropriate. But the execution was faulty.
Busy or not, telling someone wrong information is still telling someone wrong information. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Quote from: jsmcgary on July 04, 2012, 08:36:29 PM
Teachable moment in the middle of processing and screening 30,000 people into and out of an air show? I think not.
Is that an excuse? :o
Quote from: Private Investigator on July 05, 2012, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: jsmcgary on July 04, 2012, 08:36:29 PM
Teachable moment in the middle of processing and screening 30,000 people into and out of an air show? I think not.
Is that an excuse? :o
Issue has been dealt with, PI. Let's give it a rest lol. ::)
I would like to point out that rarely here is ever the full side of a situation given. And usually the advice given is based off the facts at hand. I do not see anyone here questioning anyone's integrity or unit here.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 01, 2012, 06:48:47 AMyou don't address someone as "Flight Officer Smith".
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
A warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP. The same was said of flight officers in CAP in days gone by. Someone had a hiccup when CAPP 151 was rewritten, but that's no surprise; every once in a while, there's a faux pas written into our regulations. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 12, 2012, 04:20:51 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 01, 2012, 06:48:47 AMyou don't address someone as "Flight Officer Smith".
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
A warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP. The same was said of flight officers in CAP in days gone by. Someone had a hiccup when CAPP 151 was rewritten, but that's no surprise; every once in a while, there's a faux pas written into our regulations. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cite Please. This was clearly conscious decision by NHQ to provide a definition which had
not previously existed, not a "hiccup".
The previous revision of CAPP151 "Standards, Customs, and Courtesies, dated Aug 1989, does not even
mention Warrant Officers or Flight Officers,
and the issue of that absence of definition for the term of address was discussed on this very forum in 2006:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=574.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=574.0)
Quoting the Level One Foundations Course "Customs and Courtesies" dated 2007, Page 1:
Grade Insignia, Proper Titles, and Titles of Address
All CAP members and military personnel are addressed properly by their grade or title. There is no insinuation of the term "Mister" or its variants in this context in these or any other CAP publications in reference to
Flight Officers.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 12, 2012, 04:20:51 AMA warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP.
In USN or USCG it is Mister, but in the Army or the Marines; it is Chief Smith, Chief Warrant Officer Smith or in Marine Infantry, Gunner Smith (which will be hard to explain to a non Marine, but it is a cool title, I had a pit bull I named "Gunner" when I was at Camp Lejeune) 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 12, 2012, 05:25:41 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 12, 2012, 04:20:51 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 01, 2012, 06:48:47 AMyou don't address someone as "Flight Officer Smith".
CAPP151, Page 16 disagrees with you as well.
A warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP. The same was said of flight officers in CAP in days gone by. Someone had a hiccup when CAPP 151 was rewritten, but that's no surprise; every once in a while, there's a faux pas written into our regulations. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cite Please. This was clearly conscious decision by NHQ to provide a definition which had not previously existed, not a "hiccup".
The previous revision of CAPP151 "Standards, Customs, and Courtesies, dated Aug 1989, does not even mention Warrant Officers or Flight Officers,
and the issue of that absence of definition for the term of address was discussed on this very forum in 2006:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=574.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=574.0)
Quoting the Level One Foundations Course "Customs and Courtesies" dated 2007, Page 1:
Grade Insignia, Proper Titles, and Titles of Address
All CAP members and military personnel are addressed properly by their grade or title.
There is no insinuation of the term "Mister" or its variants in this context in these or any other CAP publications in reference to
Flight Officers.
CAPP151, 2009
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Respect_on_Display_2009__Reduced_2A46F4ACF35F8.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Respect_on_Display_2009__Reduced_2A46F4ACF35F8.pdf)
Page 16.
Abbrev. Grade Term of Address
"FO Flight Officer Flight Officer"
Same goes for TFOs and SFOs. All are addressed as Flight Officer.
Since they are superior ranking to all SMWOG and and all Cadets, they should be addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am" by the previously mentioned parties.
Quote from: EMT-83 on July 01, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
Sir or Ma'am is never an inappropriate greeting, regardless of grade.
It's simple common courtesy, just like you were taught as a child.
Ah... someone decided to go the simple yet courteous route. Elegant.
I personally prefer "Sir" over "Captain Vandenbroeck". It might even be easier for the cadets. Of course, I would not fault them if they used "Captain Fantastic" either. ;)
Quote from: Private Investigator on July 12, 2012, 08:26:11 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 12, 2012, 04:20:51 AMA warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP.
In USN or USCG it is Mister, but in the Army or the Marines; it is Chief Smith, Chief Warrant Officer Smith or in Marine Infantry, Gunner Smith (which will be hard to explain to a non Marine, but it is a cool title, I had a pit bull I named "Gunner" when I was at Camp Lejeune) 8)
Almost, close, not quite. This is incorrect for the Army. The official title of adress for all Warrant(w1) and Chief Warrant(w2-w5) officers according to Army Regulation 600-20 is "Mister/Mrs/Miss/Ms."(table 1-1). The Term 'Chief' is a common informal term used for CWO much like calling a First Sgt. 'Top' and most Chief Warrant Officers don't mind it, some do. It is also acceptable to call them Sir or Ma'am.
Actually, I've never heard of a case where it isn't required to address a WO as "sir"/"ma'am."
I didn't run into a lot of them, as the AF (inexplicably) doesn't have them any more, nor does CAP. I'd trade in my Captain's bars for CWO-3 in a heartbeat to be just a specialist in one thing. This is a good article on the subject:
http://www.usawoa.org/downloads/AFA_1191tween.pdf (http://www.usawoa.org/downloads/AFA_1191tween.pdf)
I don't know why the Air Force had such a problem with them, especially considering that a good chunk of aircrew in WWII were Flight Officers:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/FlightOfficerRank.jpg)
When I would see them, I certainly didn't take the time to look for the name to say "Good afternoon, Mister Jones." I popped a salute and said "Good afternoon, Sir/Good Evening, Ma'am." Anyway, they look like lieutenants until you get close enough to see the little squares on their hardware. 8)
I find the title of this thread a bit puzzling, since "SMWOG," "SM," etc., is not a rank. I do not see why CAP insists on keeping this anachronistic title.
http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/wo_prog_other_svc.htm (http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/wo_prog_other_svc.htm)
And here.
http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/wo_prog_other_svc.htm (http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/wo_prog_other_svc.htm)
Here is quick explanation.
Basically they said that they did not really need them and SNCO's better filled that role.
I read the article, too, and it just seemed to me that the AF didn't want to take the time to figure out what to do with warrants, so they canned them, despite the fact that the other four armed services seem to do just fine with them. I knew a CG recruiter who was a Chief Petty Officer and he "warranted." A former supervisor of mine, a "mustang," went up to MSgt and then got an officer's commission...he said "if Warrant Officer grade had been available I'd have gone for that...it was really weird being an old guy, Vietnam service (and shineola loads of ribbons), wearing second looie bars that young fresh-out-of-OTS/AF Academy officers were wearing."
We're, as far as I can tell, the only nation to grant commissioned status to its (Chief) Warrant Officers...in other countries they occupy a tier in between SNCO's and commissioned officers, and do a lot in terms of leadership (and, as new recruits find out, discipline). You don't salute them but you do call them "Sir" or "Ma'am."
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4514/topstories/story10.htm (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4514/topstories/story10.htm)
I wish we could find another name for "Senior Member"....the RAF has started using "Student Officer" instead of "Officer Cadet," and it sounds a lot better.
Well....to be honest....they were not JUST FINE with them....but the WO's were able to define their positions and change their role in a way that they found that they could use them.
If the Army had not gotten helocopters in the 50's they may not have kept WO's.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Well....to be honest....they were not JUST FINE with them....but the WO's were able to define their positions and change their role in a way that they found that they could use them.
If the Army had not gotten helicopters in the 50's they may not have kept WO's.
Still have some ;) in the Engineers. Just saying. . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 12, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Well....to be honest....they were not JUST FINE with them....but the WO's were able to define their positions and change their role in a way that they found that they could use them.
If the Army had not gotten helicopters in the 50's they may not have kept WO's.
Still have some ;) in the Engineers. Just saying. . .
and comm and intel and medical and 42 other techncal specialties.....I was just wondering if they did not have the nitch in the aviation branch...would the Army have kept them everywhere else.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2012, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 12, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Well....to be honest....they were not JUST FINE with them....but the WO's were able to define their positions and change their role in a way that they found that they could use them.
If the Army had not gotten helicopters in the 50's they may not have kept WO's.
Still have some ;) in the Engineers. Just saying. . .
and comm and intel and medical and 42 other techncal specialties.....I was just wondering if they did not have the nitch in the aviation branch...would the Army have kept them everywhere else.
Roger. Hard to tell. They still have plenty of good use left.
Well.....if you don't mind a little O bashing.......from a SNCO perspective I could see a lot of use of the WO ranks in the USAF too......bascially it would eliminate all the Junior Officer jobs in all the support specialties.....which would cause the problem of how you grow good company grade officers if they don't have meaningful jobs as Lt's and Capts.
My dad told me that warrants were quite common when he was in, both in the active and National Guard sides.
He said that the guy who ran the motor pool when he was in Germany was a CWO...and once asked a six-month-wonder butterbar looie "What are you doing in MY motor pool, son?!"
Quote from: Private Investigator on July 12, 2012, 08:26:11 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 12, 2012, 04:20:51 AMA warrant officer is a "mister," a "miss" or a "mrs." in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and was so in the Air Force and in CAP.
In USN or USCG it is Mister, but in the Army or the Marines; it is Chief Smith, Chief Warrant Officer Smith or in Marine Infantry, Gunner Smith (which will be hard to explain to a non Marine, but it is a cool title, I had a pit bull I named "Gunner" when I was at Camp Lejeune) 8)
The Canoe Club got away from the "Mister" thing for O-x officers when I was still on active duty. Its use was reserved for warrant officers.
To me the issue I see getting back to the original topic comes down to training. We all do our best to teach our cadets the differences in the Senior Member Structure, but if they don't always see a certain type of Senior Member in this case a SMWOG they don't always know what to do. I ran into this when I joined CAP and the cadets had no clue what to call me.
Also my guess is the OP who is a young woman might look like she could be a cadet which could cause some confusion when looking quick. Although the "CAP" cloth cutouts should have also alievated this.
One of the reasons given for the Air Forces elimination of the WO Corps was that in 1959 the grades of E-8 and E-9 were established. The Super NCO's were to "relieve" junior officers of thier administrative duties which were to be taken by the new SMSgts and CMSGTs. Therefore WO's would be eliminated by attrition as they retired. The other services were supposed to follow suit, but obviously found an excuse to keep them.
The structures of the others services lends themselves to having warrant officers. For instance, the Navy uses them as division officers. (next echelon below department, and above work center)
Florida Wing Operating Instruction 12-03, dated 28 March 2012 states the following:
FO NOTE 2: When addressing a flight
officer, he/she is "Mr.," "Miss" or
"Mrs.," not "Flight Officer."
http://www.flwg.us/systems/file_download.ashx?pg=618&ver=7 (http://www.flwg.us/systems/file_download.ashx?pg=618&ver=7)
E1 through E9, WO-1through WO-4 and O-1 through O-10 for a total of 23 different grades. Does any organization really need that many?
I guess so. It hasn't changed in over 50 years, and probably over a hundred before they added E-8 and 9. It's all based on skill levels and experience.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on July 19, 2012, 11:50:50 PM
E1 through E9, WO-1through WO-4 and O-1 through O-10 for a total of 23 different grades. Does any organization really need that many?
To be fair, a lot of it is also "Pay" motivated.
E1-E9
O1-O10
WO1-WO4
They aren't interconnected, but all designate skill, time, and pay.
There must have been other changes in the past 50 years. a USAF E-3 used to have one stripe, now has two.
At least in the Army, there is a CWO-5, so that adds one.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 20, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on July 19, 2012, 11:50:50 PM
E1 through E9, WO-1through WO-4 and O-1 through O-10 for a total of 23 different grades. Does any organization really need that many?
To be fair, a lot of it is also "Pay" motivated.
E1-E9
O1-O10
WO1-WO4
They aren't interconnected, but all designate skill, time, and pay.
Ah, but they are, at least in the Canoe Club.
E-6 and E-7 may go LDO, to O-1
E-7 thru E-9 are the entry point to WO
Warrants may also go LDO
Quote from: BillB on July 20, 2012, 12:41:44 AM
There must have been other changes in the past 50 years. a USAF E-3 used to have one stripe, now has two.
My uncle was in the USAF not long after it became an independent service.
When he was in, all enlisted/NCO had the silver star in the centre.
One stripe - Airman 3rd Class (A3C)
Two stripes - Airman 2nd Class (A2C)
Three stripes - Airman 1st Class (A1C)
And so on...Staff, Technical, Master Sergeant, etc. He also remembered serving Warrant Officers, and how he tended to actually
respect them more than he did most second and first lieutenants.
To me one of the most baffling moves the Air Force made with rank was in the early '90s, when buck sergeant was eliminated...it seems odd going from SrA to SSgt without a basic "sergeant" rank, as with the Army and Marines.
If I could wave my magic wand...
E-1 Basic Airman (slicksleeve)
E-2 Airman (one stripe, blue star)
E-3 Airman First Class (two stripes, blue star)
E-4 Corporal (two stripes, silver star)
E-5 Sergeant (three stripes, silver star)
E-6 Staff Sergeant (three stripes, rocker below, silver star)
E-7 Flight Sergeant (three stripes, two rockers below, silver star)
E-8 Master Sergeant (three stripes, two rockers below, one chevron above, silver star)
E-9 Sergeant Major (three stripes, two rockers below, two chevrons above, silver star)
E-7 through E-9 are eligible for First Sergeant
WO1 - Warrant Officer
CW2 - Chief Warrant Officer Two
CW3 - Chief Warrant Officer Three
CW4 - Chief Warrant Officer Four
CW5 - Chief Warrant Officer Five
(all using original AF pattern warrant bars)
Quote from: bosshawk on July 20, 2012, 12:51:22 AM
At least in the Army, there is a CWO-5, so that adds one.
Also in the Army, we also had "Specialists" for certain MOS. So as an E-4 depending on your job rather than being a Corporal you would be a Specialist or Spec 4. Or if E-5 you'd be a Spec 5 rather than a Sergeant. Of course the insignia is also different. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 20, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on July 19, 2012, 11:50:50 PM
E1 through E9, WO-1through WO-4 and O-1 through O-10 for a total of 23 different grades. Does any organization really need that many?
To be fair, a lot of it is also "Pay" motivated.
E1-E9
O1-O10
WO1-WO4
They aren't interconnected, but all designate skill, time, and pay.
I just believe it would be better if the structure was less hierarchal and a little flatter.
As to pay, you also have time in grade as a determinant. You do not have to be promoted to make more money. As to designating skills, that is why there are wings and other badges and insignia to pin on your uniform. Frequently more pay goes along with those skills such as flight pay, jump pay, etc.
I believe that a large percentage of ranks exist just as a motivating factor to make some folks feel better about themselves or to give quick recognition at the lower ranks where promotions tend to come more quickly. I do not believe there should be a need for this.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on July 20, 2012, 02:52:05 PM
Also in the Army, we also had "Specialists" for certain MOS. So as an E-4 depending on your job rather than being a Corporal you would be a Specialist or Spec 4. Or if E-5 you'd be a Spec 5 rather than a Sergeant. Of course the insignia is also different. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
That's the way it was when my dad was in the Army (1957-59). He was among the earliest Specialists. He told me that initially a Specialist (which in his day went up to Specialist 9) was to be an enlisted version of a Warrant Officer...and that a Specialist had NCO pay without NCO authority (an E-4 Corporal outranked an E-9 Spec-9). I don't know what his MOS was but he fixed radios.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/E-9_-_SPC9.PNG/298px-E-9_-_SPC9.PNG)
I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.
For a while my ex-brother-in-law had two uniforms (I saw them)...one with SP5 shields and one with SGT stripes.
The rank is now virtually a parody of what it was intended to be, since the promotions to it are now the rule, not the exception, and it is not based on a special MOS. I have seen very, very few hard-stripe Corporals.
If the Army insists on having two grades of E-4, maybe having two levels of Corporal would be better...Canada does that with Corporal and Master Corporal.
I also think we in CAP and the AF (and the Army and Marines) have way too many levels of Sergeant.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 20, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.
The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.
I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines. I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 20, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines. I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system.
Agreed on buck sergeant. Where the AF botched it when they had it was to make it a lateral promotion from SrA to Sgt and keep both in E-4 paygrade...I never cared for "Senior Airman" as a rank; it should have been "Corporal" to match the Army and Marines, and Sgt should have been bumped up to E-5 (again to keep in line with the other services).
I also think the other services have too many levels of sergeants; especially when you start getting into the higher levels...how many chevrons and rockers can fit on one sleeve?
With CAP NCO SM's, the ones who were buck sergeants get a raw deal. They have to lose their NCO status by coming in as Senior Airman, which is not an NCO. Yet CAP will not allow A1C or Amn to wear those stripes.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 20, 2012, 08:59:08 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 20, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines. I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system.
Agreed on buck sergeant. Where the AF botched it when they had it was to make it a lateral promotion from SrA to Sgt and keep both in E-4 paygrade...I never cared for "Senior Airman" as a rank; it should have been "Corporal" to match the Army and Marines, and Sgt should have been bumped up to E-5 (again to keep in line with the other services).
I also think the other services have too many levels of sergeants; especially when you start getting into the higher levels...how many chevrons and rockers can fit on one sleeve?
With CAP NCO SM's, the ones who were buck sergeants get a raw deal. They have to lose their NCO status by coming in as Senior Airman, which is not an NCO. Yet CAP will not allow A1C or Amn to wear those stripes.
One of the reasons given when E-4 Sergeant was eliminated was that with the E-4 NCO's, over 50% of the enlisted in the Air Force were NCO's.
A case of too many Chiefs and not enough indians...
Let's remember that most of the Army E-4's are not NCO either....they are specialists.....I don't know the numbers.....but it is very small.
Quote from: Camas on July 20, 2012, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 20, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.
The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.
According to sources I've read, SP8 and SP9 grades only existed on paper. No one was ever promoted to those grades.
Not that I'd be in any position to question how the Army does things, but I don't understand why the Army has to have two E-4 grades. What's wrong with being a corporal?
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 21, 2012, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: Camas on July 20, 2012, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 20, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.
The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.
According to sources I've read, SP8 and SP9 grades only existed on paper. No one was ever promoted to those grades.
Not that I'd be in any position to question how the Army does things, but I don't understand why the Army has to have two E-4 grades. What's wrong with being a corporal?
Jack
A Corporal is an NCO and is in a leadership position. While a Specialist is not not in a leadership position. They're just a "worker bee".
Quote from: PHall on July 21, 2012, 12:49:15 PM
A Corporal is an NCO and is in a leadership position. While a Specialist is not not in a leadership position. They're just a "worker bee".
But what's the sense in having them? After all, they are not "specialists" anymore and have not been for a long time.
The British, Australians and New Zealanders, as well as the USMC, have Lance Corporal and Corporal...and the Army had it from 1965-68.
(http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/29498-1/Lance-Corporal.jpg)
(http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/29486-1/Corporal.jpg)
(http://www.oocities.org/heartland/flats/6804/lance_cor.jpg)
(http://www.oocities.org/heartland/flats/6804/corporal.jpg)
Canada has Corporal and Master Corporal:
(http://jfchalifoux.com/corporal_5_cf_green_uniform.jpg)
(http://jfchalifoux.com/master_corporal_cf_green_uniform.jpg)
Two different paygrades, two different places in the hierarchy.
There could be a lot of simplification of the ranks across all the services, and, by extension, CAP.
I think the rational went/goes like this:
Joe Schmuckatelli joins the AF/Army and ends up in tech school. Finishes school and starts doing his tech job. As a newb, he has job skills, but maybe not so much in the way of leadership skills. He gets paid as an E-4 (SrA/SPC), but doesn't get any supervisory roles. After a while his leaderships skills have grown, and he's moved up to Sgt/CPL. This IDs him as a leader, instead of just a worker bee. After meeting the requisite quals, he moves up to E-5.
Not saying right or wrong, just one way to run the system.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 21, 2012, 07:16:58 PM
I think the rational went/goes like this:
Joe Schmuckatelli joins the AF/Army and ends up in tech school. Finishes school and starts doing his tech job. As a newb, he has job skills, but maybe not so much in the way of leadership skills. He gets paid as an E-4 (SrA/SPC), but doesn't get any supervisory roles. After a while his leaderships skills have grown, and he's moved up to Sgt/CPL. This IDs him as a leader, instead of just a worker bee. After meeting the requisite quals, he moves up to E-5.
Not saying right or wrong, just one way to run the system.
The Army and USAF had two completely different rationals.
The Army said......these specialties and people doing them.....are not "leaders" they are "specialists"....they need to move up in the pay grades...but not in the "rank". So they created the grades of Spec 4 through Spec 9 (at least on paper).
For a while it worked....but the Spec 5-7 grades got all jammed up so they decided to do away with them.
The USAF never had that mentality. The mentality was that as an elisted guy moved up....they eased him into leadership. Also there were specific hoops one had to jump through to move up to the NCO ranks.
So at, normally, 36 months time in service (having completed your 5 level) you were awarded your SrA rank. Then you had to PME Phase I......after holding SrA for 12 months you put on your star and became a Sgt...and at that point picked up leadership roles.
What happened...is over the years.....going to PME became automatic and passing it became easier.......so it became just a simple waiting gain...stay in four years and you become an NCO. Then you add the gray area between SrA and Sgt. They were getting paid the same. The Sgt is still jobing it on the floor/flight line/office just like his SrA counter parts....but he has the added responsibilty of supervising. He was held to a higher standard of conduct.
On the other side of that coin was that some places did not have enough Sgt E-4s and so the SrAs were doing Sgt work....supervising, training, etc....and of course they did not have the recognition for their duties.
So the idea was to make being an NCO (and a SNCO) a "big deal". They decided that the first NCO rank would be E-5...no more automatic NCOs. You could not go to the new PME course until you had been a SrA for 1 year (this saved them training people who were getting out at 4 years). It made a clear break between NCOs and Airman....and it made a clear distinction in their pay grades.
Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really? You are about 50 years too late to that fight.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 21, 2012, 09:27:38 PM
Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really? You are about 50 years too late to that fight.
I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant. That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt. The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant)
Quote from: CyBorg on July 21, 2012, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 21, 2012, 09:27:38 PM
Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really? You are about 50 years too late to that fight.
I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant. That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt. The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant)
Uhhh, if it isn't broke, why fix it? What "problem" are you trying to solve here? Because there isn't a "problem".
Quote from: CyBorg on July 21, 2012, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 21, 2012, 09:27:38 PM
Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really? You are about 50 years too late to that fight.
I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant. That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt. The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant)
Yes...but you can't compare the RAF with the USAF...because they do their ranks and pay grades even more differently then the US does.
Becoming a Sgt in the RAF is a much bigger deal then becoming one in the USAF or even the Army.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 22, 2012, 06:25:42 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 21, 2012, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 21, 2012, 09:27:38 PM
Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really? You are about 50 years too late to that fight.
I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant. That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt. The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant)
Yes...but you can't compare the RAF with the USAF...because they do their ranks and pay grades even more differently then the US does.
Becoming a Sgt in the RAF is a much bigger deal then becoming one in the USAF or even the Army.
Becoming a Sergeant in the RAF is pretty much equal with putting on Master Sergeant in the USAF.
Pretty much the same level of responsibilities is expected from each.
Also promotions in the RAF come at a much slower rate then you see in the USAF.