Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Rank is always relevant, seniority is more of an officer thing, which I can’t really comment on.

Now authority, that’s something some struggle with.
 
There are a million and one scenarios where rank and seniority are utterly irrelevant. Keeping to the theme of the RAF how about a SWO pulling rank on a Technical SNCO over matters he has no knowledge of. Or how about the Chief Clerk overruling an experienced Infantry Pl Sgt in the middle of a firefight?
Let's avoid the theme of the RAF - I've finally got bored of the ACM of the KofL.

Far more relevant to the thread on ranks, but in the unlikely event of the Chief Clerk being there, he'd have no authority to do so. QRs, para 2.017 is very clear:

Command of Sub Units
2.017. Command of sub units (companies, platoons, sections and equivalents) is to be exercised by the person appointed to command or, in his absence, by the senior member of that sub unit belonging to the arm or service concerned.


The Chief Clerk / RAO, etc has no authority to overrule even in the same unit (unless appointed to). He can't just turn up. Ditto for anyone trying to take over any ship, unit, etc.

... and if there's any room for doubt, para 2.018c covers all eventualities:

Command in Special Circumstances
2.018.
.....
c. In circumstances where the exercise of command is not covered by the preceding paragraphs, command is to be exercised by the most appropriately qualified senior officer, warrant officer or NCO present, but during operations is not to be exercised by medical and dental officers or chaplains, except over personnel of medical and dental units and patients.
 
My

My father flew for his last three years in the RAF as a Master Pilot.
I asked him about Warrant Ranks and he stated categorically that the holder of a Master rank was a SNCO, not a WO, unless something has changed between 1966 and today.
@Buddy! Disagree? Okay, I am all ears for your input.
 
Don't exclude the RN from that list. They may not be creating any more WO2s, but there are still a fair few of them around, and until they all are either promoted or leave, there will be a need to differentiate between the two.
Still WO2s in the WESM and MESM branches however none in WEGS or MEGS; according to a very recently ex-fish head work colleague of mine. Causes a bit of friction apparently!

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Can we at least agree that:

(a) WO = WO1 = M/aircrew (inc. M/signaller, M/engineer, M/air electronics operator, M/air loadmaster).

(b) WO2 = F/all else.

(c) CPO = C/Sgt = S/sgt = S/cpl = F/sgt = C/technician.

(d) PO = sgt = cpl of horse.

(e) The RAF & the HCav should stop being so bloody silly.
 
(c) CPO = C/Sgt = S/sgt = S/cpl = F/sgt = C/technician.
Sorry, that's a no.

All OR7, but CTechs are junior in rank to their own Flt Sgts but some are equal to the other Flt Sgts (but the same) and some are junior. Sometimes.
... and if they're Drum Majors they could be either. Or neither. But not both.
 
RAF WOs and Master Aircrew are both NATO OR9, therefore equivalent rank.

RAF Flt Sgt, Flt Sergeant aircrew and Chief Tech are all NATO OR 7, therefore equivalent rank.
 
RAF Flt Sgt, Flt Sergeant aircrew and Chief Tech are all NATO OR 7, therefore equivalent rank.
Someone doesn't agree with you:
As CT only exists within technical trades they are subordinate to FS, which apply across the Service
CT is a distinct rank, subordinate to FS; and no more equivalent to FS than FS it to WO2.
... or with himself:
Is a senior Chief Tech, who has held that "rank" for several years subordinate to a newly-promoted non-tech Flt Sgt
Yes
 
Let's avoid the theme of the RAF - I've finally got bored of the ACM of the KofL.

Far more relevant to the thread on ranks, but in the unlikely event of the Chief Clerk being there, he'd have no authority to do so. QRs, para 2.017 is very clear:

Command of Sub Units
2.017. Command of sub units (companies, platoons, sections and equivalents) is to be exercised by the person appointed to command or, in his absence, by the senior member of that sub unit belonging to the arm or service concerned.


The Chief Clerk / RAO, etc has no authority to overrule even in the same unit (unless appointed to). He can't just turn up. Ditto for anyone trying to take over any ship, unit, etc.

... and if there's any room for doubt, para 2.018c covers all eventualities:

Command in Special Circumstances
2.018.
.....
c. In circumstances where the exercise of command is not covered by the preceding paragraphs, command is to be exercised by the most appropriately qualified senior officer, warrant officer or NCO present, but during operations is not to be exercised by medical and dental officers or chaplains, except over personnel of medical and dental units and patients.
Thanks all of that pretty much supports my position in discussion with @Joe_Private the holder of a particular rank carries very little authority outside of their employment. As unit's become more and more mixed especially within BGs where there can be a multitude of people from different cap badges and different trades whose rank means nothing outside the task they are there to perform.
 
Thanks all of that pretty much supports my position in discussion with @Joe_Private the holder of a particular rank carries very little authority outside of their employment. As unit's become more and more mixed especially within BGs where there can be a multitude of people from different cap badges and different trades whose rank means nothing outside the task they are there to perform.
Yes and no. Different cap badges and / or trades doesn't aways mean a different CoC, particuarl in a BG as distinct from a bn
 
You are talking nonsense and show a distinct lack of knowledge of the Armed Forces.

I don’t think you ever served.
 
RAF WOs and Master Aircrew are both NATO OR9, therefore equivalent rank.

RAF Flt Sgt, Flt Sergeant aircrew and Chief Tech are all NATO OR 7, therefore equivalent rank.
The NATO ranking system has nothing to do with it. Some NATO militaries have more than 9 ranks and so have to "share"a NATO ranking because there are only nine of them. But in that NATO rank one may outrank the other within their own nation.
 
The NATO ranking system has nothing to do with it. Some NATO militaries have more than 9 ranks and so have to "share"a NATO ranking because there are only nine of them. But in that NATO rank one may outrank the other within their own nation.
Fair enough, but if it shows equivalency in ranks, where does it show one rank is senior to the other? E.g Flt Sgt and Chief Tech?
 
Thanks all of that pretty much supports my position in discussion with @Joe_Private the holder of a particular rank carries very little authority outside of their employment. As unit's become more and more mixed especially within BGs where there can be a multitude of people from different cap badges and different trades whose rank means nothing outside the task they are there to perform.
Negative. You have it arrse about face. The holder of a particular rank carries very little authority inside someone else's sphere of employment, but there is a vast amount of stuff not restricted to one single group's aor that is the duty and responsibility of any person who holds any rank to ensure that those junior to him or her are either doing what they should be doing, or not doing what they shouldn't be doing.
 

Latest Threads

Top