I’m not sure what is going on at HQAC but perhaps further proof that HQAC have no idea how the CFAV operates but…
(ie are they aware of what we can and can’t see via Sharepoint…?)
Take a look at ACO Docs Library > Activities > Fieldcraft or click here
and you’ll see a selection of “final draft not for release until authorised” documents on night ex, general instruction, training, governance and approval of and planning of exercises orders
it maybe of interest to some of you who enjoy “playing Army” to be ahead of the potential curve…
“Adult cadets should be encouraged to take an active part in the teaching of FT activities but and are not to be included in the adult to cadet ratio as a supervisor or a cadet.”
My guess is that they don’t count as either (ie they’re considered mature enough not to need supervision, but not sufficiently mature to actually supervise others) - so you could have say:
3 staff
24 u18 cadets (1:8 ratio)
4 staff cadets
But if it was written in a recognisable form of English it might be a bit clearer.
If they are teaching if they are doing it on their own (ie not acting as stooge to a member of staff) are they not de facto supervising those whom they are teaching, just like if they were taking a lesson in a classroom at the squadron? Surely being given responsibility, which supervision is, is all part of ongoing development that we do with cadets almost from day one? I know there’s a lot of nervousness around FMS as it has been allowed to develop without any sort of formal courses for instructors and is now in the knee jerking stage after an unforseeable and possibly unpreventable incident.
It would be interesting to see how they would be accounted for on the activity given we can, unless something odd has happened, only identify staff or cadets and then that the ‘adult’ cadets haven’t had any sort of supervisory role. What this does mean is that there will need to a lot more staff than required within the ratios to cover all circumstances and not just the instructional side.
The really daft thing is they could as an 19 years and 11 month and 28 day old cadet being doing the same as a member of staff aged 20 and a few weeks, a few weeks later. Yet as the member of staff have and expected to have full supervisory rights. So what happens in those few weeks, does the maturity fairy visit and sprinkle them with magic dust? Just because they would have filled in a few forms and had a chat from a WSO, doesn’t make any difference to them as an individual in terms of personality. Where do they gain the experience to be 20 and few days and take responsibility
This is the world of the over 18s generally in the eyes of HQAC. They exist, are considered adults due to the need for a DBS, the nonsense of needing to prove their worth to the Corps and yet can’t be formally recognised, except when HQAC is gracious enough to allow it. There must be constant looks of surprise on the faces of the mighty when coming across this age group.
The irony is that over 18s had always been used in a supervisory role and more, pre all the recent changes. Granted the buck wouldn’t stop with them officially, but unofficially allow anything untoward to happen and there would be some advice offered. I recall a number of times as a cadet SNCO being told you’re it on an activity while staff were doing something else and on 2 occasions being in charge of a group from the Wing, with all the responsibility for paperwork, conduct etc, where no staff from the Wing were going.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=24399]
The really daft thing is they could as an 19 years and 11 month and 28 day old cadet being doing the same as a member of staff aged 20 and a few weeks, a few weeks later. Yet as the member of staff have and expected to have full supervisory rights. So what happens in those few weeks, does the maturity fairy visit and sprinkle them with magic dust? Just because they would have filled in a few forms and had a chat from a WSO, doesn’t make any difference to them as an individual in terms of personality. Where do they gain the experience to be 20 and few days and take responsibility
The irony is that over 18s had always been used in a supervisory role and more, pre all the recent changes. Granted the buck wouldn’t stop with them officially, but unofficially allow anything untoward to happen and there would be some advice offered. I recall a number of times as a cadet SNCO being told you’re it on an activity while staff were doing something else and on 2 occasions being in charge of a group from the Wing, with all the responsibility for paperwork, conduct etc, where no staff from the Wing were going.[/quote]
Its that pesky law of the land again. ACO have decreed you have to be 20 to be legally supervising its cadets. 19 yrs, 30 days, 23hrs, 59mins, 59 secs is not 20yrs.
As a cadet warrant officer I commanded the Party of 62 for an overseas camp, which meant all paperwork, travel documents, timings, check in and boarding was my responsibility to get organised and done on time. Didn’t hand over to an adult member of staff until we arrived at our destination. Nobody worried about it then, not even me.
Do the ATC still allow senior cadets to run small bore ranges?
[quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=25029]
Do the ATC still allow senior cadets to run small bore ranges?[/quote]
Nope. The regs use to be that a CWO once 20 could become an RCO. However, post LASER Review and a fair few updates to Pam21c it is no longer the case (least because we don’t have any CWOs over 20!)
Official confirmation of the various factors has been mitigated by the ongoing inquest and some legal questions soi it isn’t really something we can discuss but it is probably safe to say that the review of fieldcraft policy has been shaped to some extent by those circumstances.
There was a benefit to giving them a review and a tidy-up anyway since ACP16 had been out for a while and the time was right to see how they’d been working and to update some bits and pieces.
I’d like to add that we won’t be tolerating comments about the above enquiry. It’s still ongoing and the media will, I’m sure, want any conjecture they can get their hands on. It would be sensible to leave this topic simply for the discussion of ACFTIs please.