Talk:Flight sergeant

Which air forces?
At present we have the following in the opening paragraph: "Flight Sergeant is a non-commissioned rank in some air forces, above Chief Technician and below Warrant Officer". One problem with this is that it fails to state which air forces use the rank. Stating which sort of air forces is key summary information. A second problem is that not all air forces which use the rank, place it between Chief Technician and Warrant Officer.

In some other air force rank articles the Commonwealth is indicated (ie "is a rank in some Commonwealth air forces") however this is not entirely correct here (or in several other places). For example this rank is used in the Irish Air Corps and the Air Force of Zimbabwe (neither Ireland nor Zimbabwe are currently Commonwealth members). The determining factor here is that the air forces in question were or are under a degree of RAF influence. My favoured wording is "Flight Sergeant is a non-commissioned rank in the British Royal Air Force and several other air forces which have adopted all or part of the RAF rank structure." This wording explaines in a clear and concise manner which air forces use the rank. I would ask that Australians (or others) who object to this wording might want to ask themselves "If the RFC and RAF had not first used the rank, would the RAAF (or other air force) be using it today?" Greenshed 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Change that to "Flight Sergeant is senior a non-commissioned rank ..." Greenshed 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Flight sergeant (within the RAAF) still exist today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.153.192 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)