Technical Warrant Officers

Discussion in 'Seniors' started by ibilola, Aug 11, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Should the British Army have a similar rank to the WO/Chief WO in the US Armed Forces for technical specialists e.g. Medical Personnel and Helecopter Pilots? US WOs have to pass an arduous WO Candidates Course before they become WO1s, and commissioned as CWOs a couple of years later. They all have officer status.

    This seems a better solution than the aborted Professionally Qualified WO scheme (ie SNCO) planned for the AMS a few months ago. At least those personnel taking degrees and HNDs who don't have command responsibilities would get some recognition in terms of rank.

    The saddest thing at Shrivenham a few years back was seeing trainee Radiographers (private soldiers) not beng able to socialise with the other undergraduates who were officers.
  2. Would professionally qualified status for Warrant Officers, dilute the need for professionally qualiied officers.

    It may take 6 years of part time study to acquire a degree and 12 years to make the rank, not to mention the cost, which no doubt the army would need to bear as the qualfication required was in the course of a soldiers employment.

    The PQO officer route gets all that for nothing and much quicker.

    I concede the point about socialising, but this divide is endemic throughout HM Armed Forces and recognising professionally qualfied status for "other ranks" holding a degree would do little to remedy it.
  3. As far as I'm aware the only WOs the spams have are helicopter pilots. What's so special about medics?
  4. Not only Pilots and medics, a lot of Sigs and Engineer types as well.

    No all are even technical , I work quite often with a CWO who is a more a subject matter expert on being a shiny arrse- Data bop type for the sigs.

    Good thing for their Officers (posted as a SF Officer into a Comms school?? don't know HDB3 from his Arrse) , or a and also a good incentive for the toms to aim for.

    Mind I also realise that 75 % of the SPAMS I work with have a degrees or are studying for a degree.

    Not all make it to be a CWO going to show that its not the degree that makes the man/person .

    And they also stay on until 50 plus.
  5. The point is that an increasing number of jobs require technical expertise and extensive training. If you're going to recruit and retain people with the right skills they need to be rewarded in terms of status and salary. The US Army seems to recognise this with their CWO Grade, the British Army does not.
  6. You've never heard of trade pay then?

    I agree with OB. As for degrees........what ******* use is a BSc in Sports Nutrition to most jobs in the Army? Or how about Archaeology? History? or even a BA in Tourism? (Honestly) There's plenty been accepted into Sandhurst on the back of having a 'degree' in useless subjects. If the Army wants graduates.....get ones with qualifications which are relevant to the post. And yes, reward them for their efforts through better pay and conditions. It happens for Grad Officers, so why not grad ORs?

    I personally hope the individual with the Tourism degree is in Iraq.....or the Falklands. Well....she wanted to travel.
  7. You're right. The degree doesn't make the man. All I'm saying is that someone with the relevant skills (and I don't mean a degree in Media Studies) should be recognised by the army in terms of salary and status.
  8. The bizzare thing is, that during my 13 years I met quite a few 'other ranks' with degrees. Most of who joined because they didn't fancy call centre work, and wanted to see a bit of the world.
    When joining they did not declare their educational background ad were assumed to be just like eveyone else.
    Strangely enough they were also (for the most part) deemed not suitable for any sort of promotion as they were often argumentative, awkward and in most cases a hell of alot brighter and intelligent than those leading them. This was not looked on as a good thing in a junior rank and most never got promoted. It now seems strange to actively encourage this and reward it. Double standards or the army realising it needs to recruite from universities to keep up numbers?
  9. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    I have know a lot of Technical WOs. Technically they were WOs but in fact they were just plonkers. :wink:
  10. x-inf So early in the morning!
  11. Did trade pay not die out with Pay 2000
  12. When I was in cadets I was told the RAF (ok I was ATC) were not selecting recruits with loads of quals not likely to be officers - for the same reasons.

    Why do we have to stick to the old class system, surely we should be more flexible now. Ok some guys are clever but won't get commisioned but why not give them a career path (with better pay) within the forces.
  13. Polar

    I agree. The army will, sooner or later, introduce a 'fast-stream' scheme for highly qualified technicians despite the fact they have abandoned the PQWO scheme.
  14. Brilliant background checks then.

    "Whats this three year gap in his employment history?", "Dole most likely...dont worry abour it."
  15. Well, let's hope that in your case it is most definately 'later'.

    Do you know how many threads you have whined on with regards to this subject?

    Try may get promoted.