This is nothing new but I’ve been nobbled to teach some radio this evening and browsing through the ACPs has brought it all rushing back.
There is probably no other single activity in the ACO so thoroughly locked into the world of the 1960s than radio. I know they are trying to haul the communicators badge syllabus into the microprocessor age but voice procedure seems to be predominantly about preparing and sending pointless messages in a variety of standard formats and doing very little of genuine value.
The vast majority of my time on radios is spent in what we can describe as a “tactical vhf/uhf environment” where the radio is a tool and is used in support of another activity. This requires us to use proper procedures and protocols but using them to pass genuine information to other stations.
Voice procedures have all been taken directly from Allied Communications Publication 125 (F).
It’s years out of date and designed for a time when long range comms and equipment capabilities meant that the signal quality could be very mixed.
The majority of radio use in the ACO has surely got to be close range, good conditions.
What we should be doing is adopting Land Component procedures so that not only are we eliminating unnecessary faff, but we’re also staying more closely along side the regular forces. Much more useful in preparing cadets for a career in the military.
While we’re at it, ditch the stupid Codex system and adopt BATCO like the ACF.
[quote=“incubus” post=23478]There is probably no other single activity in the ACO so thoroughly locked into the world of the 1960s than radio. I know they are trying to haul the communicators badge syllabus into the microprocessor age but voice procedure seems to be predominantly about preparing and sending pointless messages in a variety of standard formats and doing very little of genuine value.[/quote]Yep.
And like a lot of first class training, the level of understanding now required seems to go way over the top on some aspects whilst paying only lip service to bits that might actually be useful.
You’re having a huge, long-drawn out laugh, aren’t you? :lol:
BATCO my chocolate starfish! Who the hell in their right mind would want THAT?![/quote]
Well it’s a lot better than Codex which is utterly pointless.
At least if we go with BATCO we can actually get some joint comms going with the other cadet forces.
You’re having a huge, long-drawn out laugh, aren’t you? :lol:
BATCO my chocolate starfish! Who the hell in their right mind would want THAT?![/quote]
Well it’s a lot better than Codex which is utterly pointless.
At least if we go with BATCO we can actually get some joint comms going with the other cadet forces.[/quote]
Don’t know anything about Codex but I used to hate BATCO with its biograms and triograms and long message procedure which used to bring the section to a grinding halt so the signaller could encode and send or receive and decode…
See also the recent discussion on First Class training - the gigantic wodge of radio questions in the First Class training book should be completely removed or at least brought out of the 1940s and reduced to perhaps a single page.
By all means keep radio comms as an optional subject for the Terminally Tedious, but it should be ditched as a compulsory subject at First Class level.
whoever mentioned that, go outside and have a chat with yourself.[/quote]
Agreed. Take the Mess Webley…
The ONLY use for a coded facility is if the cadets are doing an inter-flight “secret squirrel” exercise (first to find the buried treasure, etc). It shows that whilst the need for secure comms is very important, the use of such a system is very frustrating & exceptionally time consuming. Get a few coding/decoding aspects wrong & your whole exercise is ruined.
nothing if you ask me.
in two evenings I could introduce the theory and depending on class ability and size start a practical.
by the end of the second night (or third if needed) everyone understood the basics and were deemed competent enough to be trusted with a radio and know what to do should on an event they get one thrust into their hand understanding enough to know codewords, callsigns and networks to know what to do and how.
as i see the system should be something along the lines of:
1st class - basic operator
Full radio ops course (Wing) - full operator/ideal NCS Cadet (ideally with a “blue” Comms badge)
Advance Radio course (Wing) - expands knowledge and practises high level comms procedures (“silver” comms badge)
[quote=“steve679” post=23491]what was wrong with the old system?
nothing if you ask me.
in two evenings I could introduce the theory and depending on class ability and size start a practical.
by the end of the second night (or third if needed) everyone understood the basics and were deemed competent enough to be trusted with a radio and know what to do should on an event they get one thrust into their hand understanding enough to know codewords, callsigns and networks to know what to do and how.
as i see the system should be something along the lines of:
1st class - basic operator
Full radio ops course (Wing) - full operator/ideal NCS Cadet (ideally with a “blue” Comms badge)
Advance Radio course (Wing) - expands knowledge and practises high level comms procedures (“silver” comms badge)[/quote]I’d throw some senior/master level subjects in there too.
See, the reason I like BATCO is because it’s more complicated. It’s like a good game of sudoku
I’d quite enjoy teaching the mechanics of Enigma if only there were enough people interested.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=23501]See, the reason I like BATCO is because it’s more complicated. It’s like a good game of sudoku
I’d quite enjoy teaching the mechanics of Enigma if only there were enough people interested.[/quote]
[wraps mess webley in brown paper packaging, notes wdi’s address and posts special delivery…]
To throw another thing into the mix, how relevant in the era of modern comms is radio?
We have handheld radios and other than a bit of training, associated exercises and maybe an FMS ex, they don’t get used. The only time cadets really use radio is when doing flying / gliding. When we do public events the organisers give us their PMRs to use and if we need to speak to each other we use mobiles. The cadets invariably text each other.
Analogue comms are an important resilience tool, but not at this level - for national response. Today’s age, and looking to the future, it’s all about digital encryption broadband comms. TETRA was the forerunner but didn’t deliver what it promised, but with 4G and else on the horizon, the ability to communicate in a one to one, one to many or provide instant imagery and videos with all the controls of the same will overtake and consign analogue comms to the history books. Some may argue it already has.
Change comms to teach kids about to talk, what’s currently available, how public services use them now and future tech. Throw in digital security and cyber crime elements to increase their knowledge and understanding ala safeguarding, CSE and identity theft.
Even with the advances in technology, radio is not quite dead and pointless just yet. They still have a firm place in aviation and shipping, though the RT procedures differ.
We use handhelds for coordination at a number of events where we are responsible for ourselves so we don’t have the luxury of having someone hand us their own radios. Mobile phones would be handy for some communications (assuming we aren’t in an area with no coverage, as we very regularly are) but are damned-all use for coordinating a car park (we’ve started just chatting on PMR446 for this latter task as our ATC handsets have useless batteries and are not reliable.)
One of the major events we help with in our wing is the RunBalmoral event where we have up to 25-30 stations on a net for security and coordination. The NCS has access to the council’s net and the ambulance station next door but we rely on radios (including relay quite often) and I’d certainly not try to rely on a mobile signal.
However, when it comes to passing formal messages over a radio network those days are pretty much gone and it remains only as an overcomplicated means to generate a reason to use radio equipment. the comms syllabus’s idea of “datacomms” should be consigned to the bin, replaced by an expanded understanding of modern computer data communications.
I’ve always got the idea (correct or not) that the world of radio is influenced heavily by the stereotypical radio amateur who likes tinkering with electronics in his shed and straining to hear some sort of tinny radio signal from a guy in a far country, despite probably speaking to the same person on Skype afterwards. From listening to the local ham repeater, they seem happiest using radios to speak to other radio users about the radios they are using. I’ve no issue with it until it starts to steer the ACO’s idea of comms.
