How do you get a annual camp on SMS? Unless I am missing something and it goes under Misc who go you get your record of attendance on the SMS? We have to jump through so many hoops for Adv Trg, field craft etc to get it cleared. For camps do we just send the cadets with a TG21 and bobs your uncle?
Our wing the CampCom has to do a PiPe with a travel plan to and from the camp and all the camp
Admin orders. The only activities after that on Bader for the camp is a shooting ram raised by the RCO.
Annual Camps donât go on Bader as a normal Squadron camp would. The only things that would need to go on as a separate application are the shooting and if you intend to do any AT.
So how is a cadet record of summer camp generated on BADER for the cadets CV?
So for summer camp there are multiple activities EG museum visits, shooting, adv trg, the local cinema, ten pin bowling. All these will need to have separate clearances from the appropriate authority?
No we just do a single pipe for the camp.
cadets Bader then says he attended RAF xxxx thatâs it. No need for individual pipes and AT requests the only additional one is for shooting.
If you had to raise all these pipes, at requests then I donât think you will be getting many people willing to be a camp comm
Camps are a weird thing. The Duty Risk Holder I believe is the Station Commander hence the ACLO putting together a camp program. Any changes should be notified to the ACLO team for approval and activities should be RAâd by the ACLO team and confirmed by the camp staff.
Rumor has it that the Camps Activity Module will be going live in the next SMS Update (15 Aug) it was due to be the last update, which would have been just in time for this yearâs camp season, however priority was moved to 2FTS work with the anticipated return to flight.
My understanding is that the Camp will be the lead activity, which will have sub activities for Shooting & AT, so that cadets and staff are automatically added to the activity, and the IC just needs to upload the relevant documentation.
It concerns me that cadets could be doing AT on camp, with no oversight from the WATTO and potentially non qualified staff in a supervisory role. A PIPE/Other should not be used as a catch all approval for a week long camp, as this in effect gives the camp staff free reign.
Do you know if we will be able to use this function for all camps? I have in the past run a Squadron camp which escalated to include 100+ cadets and 2 Wings and we needed to do seperate applications for shooting and AT, if we had wanted to do Fieldcraft we would have needed a third application!
We are expected to put on an AT for any AT that we plan to add to an annual camp. (But not if its been planned as part of the camp by the ACLO and they are providing the staff such as PTIâs running a high ropes course). We also have to put a shooting on for the shooting, but thatâs it, just the 1 or 2 applications.
Will we have the ability to access such things while at camp? When Iâve been on camps recently supplied IT facilities have been between patchy, crap and non-existent, with several staff taking laptops/pads and someone having to take a printer and forget internet access. You see a lot of people using mobile phones to access the internet, which is nonsensical when you are running an activity like an annual camp, given the patchiness of signals etc.
Will it be able to be dynamic with the CC able to authorise things or will it be camp staff doing the work and waiting for âWingâ to authorise it? When Iâve been CC the camp programme is best described as fluid, given the body of the programme roles over to each year without being looked at and as a result some of the things and people listed no longer exist there. If the activity on SMS is as per every other activity apart from a list of names it wonât serve any other purpose.
I donât see CCs being given the authority to OK things on SMS, which suggests we carry on as we are.
1 Like
How is travelling to camp a Public Event?
The Corps often confuses meâŚ
1 Like
On my sqn the OC uses PIPE as a generic term for every activity we set up on SMS, if itâs AT itâs a âPIPEâ for the camping weekend or a âPIPEâ for shooting etc.
What Iâve never understood is that I set up an AT activity, the OC has to say heâs happy and then the WATTO has to give it the final clearance, if I set up a parade then the WExO has to give the final OK after the OC has ticked a box to say heâs happy. In many cases the OC isnât even going to be there. What exactly is the purpose of the OC doing anything as knock backs come from higher up? It seems to be an admin step for the sake of an admin step, if people arenât busy enough.
The OC can and should be knocking things back if they arenât correct, itâs very rare that we get a PIPE knocked back by wing as I will have gone through it first.
It would seem that itâs still a bit unnecessary though. A better system would perhaps be:
IC activity submits event to wing (WExO, WATTO, WFTO, etc).
OC is copied in automatically
Wing review activity
If wing are unhappy, they return it
If wing keep having to return stuff, then they ask the OC why they arenât checking things
And OC would say âbecause it doesnât come through me as youâve cut me out of the chain, I only become aware after an application is submittedâ
I would question why I need the WeXO to authorise a bag pack at my local Sainsburyâs anyway. Iâm trusted to risk assess my own Squadron including activities in Public Places on Parade nights within âthe extended Squadron footprintâ so why does doing an activity on aSaturday require an application signed off by someone who has never been on a Squadron?
1 Like
Basically, my point was that it should be up to the OC to decide whether or not to let his/her staff submit applications without checking them first - so if itâs an experienced member of staff whoâs done it many times before then they can go on trust without having an unnecessary admin step; if itâs a more junior or inexperienced person then the OC should be telling them that the OC (or another member of staff) should check it first.
In my time as OC I was always aware of what was going on invariably I was either the POC for whoever wanted the sqnâs involvement (in which instance I delegated someone to coordinate it) or it was discussed between the us (the staff) as part of the planning process. If the OC is out of the chain there has to be something seriously wrong. Even now I like all the staff know whatâs going on and when, but doesnât mean we are going.
If the OC doesnât delegate itâs a short run to the loonie bin. Sometimes you have to get things wrong and let people get things wrong, itâs all part of learning.
The SMS activity system does seem to have developed into an excessively OTT system in terms of admin when it was sold as a way of to simplifying things. Try adding or removing staff once itâs been approved. We are in a group of 4 sqns who invariably do AT and DofE together and all of the staff are put on everything just as a matter of course, but we donât all go, just saves time and aggro later.
In the old days of paper forms you just said x number of staff and if it was more or less than stated no one really cared, now you have to pick the staff and for simplicity invariably just add everyone to cover all eventualities. Yes the old forms may have been slower as they needed to be posted, but the flexibility outweighed the time factor and you tended to have better planning for things, as SMS does seem to lead to a lot of last minute things.
1 Like
If you are putting all of the staff on every application as a matter of course whether they are attending or not how are Wing able to ensure that you have sufficient qualified staff attending?
I donât see a problem with the OC tick box, but I would like an amendment. I would like it to be âsubmit to OCâ button the same as when it goes to Wing/Region that way if an OC sends it back to the activity ic for Amendment there is an audit trail.
I would also like PIPe authority delegated to the OC, it doesnât really need the WeXO (or in my Wing the Deputy Wing Commander) to sign it off.
Weâve never had a situation in all the years (including pre-SMS) weâve worked together that weâve not had enough qualified staff go, because we all get on and new staff coming in arenât made to feel like outsiders. Weâve got 4 new CIs (ex cadets) among the squadrons and have just started getting involved, they are included fully, get given things to do and left to it, they ask when the next things are. Between them they are looking to do BELA and DofE Supervisor and Assessor courses.
Whoever devised the system as it is has created this situation, because it is human nature to find shortcuts and solutions to problems presented. If not weâd still be running around naked, living in caves, picking berries off of trees and living off carrion as weâd never have started farming or hunting and all those two activities present in terms of development opportunities.
The whole point of the system is that the WATTO or for larger activities the RATTO can look at who is attending, what qualifications they have, read the risk assessments and the plan of action and sign off to say that yes this activity is authorised as it is appropriate. If you are lying about the number of staff attending then their decision to authorise the activity is based upon flawed information.
Our WATTO and indeed our RATTO have been known to make spot checks of activities to ensure they are being run as advertised, not sure what they would make of you listing people who arenât attending.