I’m not so sure that will be a problem - ACLC studes are accomodated on the South side of Cranditz in the old H-Blocks (by Supply Wing HQ). AIUI when the school at Halton is moved to Cranwell, new accomodation for the Airmen/Airwomen will have been built on what is (currently) the North Airfield.
1 Like
Having Instructed on ACLC (and having been a Flt Cdr on such), it would be a loss to the Corps if we lost ACLC. In my view it is one of the most important courses we offer to our cadets.
1 Like
It’s crazy how limited the opportunities are, though.
Not in terms of numbers - I get there has to be a limit there - but in terms of a window for cadets to participate.
We’ve got a couple of great candidates who should by rights have done it last year, were able to just get in this year, but by next year will be ineligible.
Why is it so restrictive? (This isn’t a dig, its a genuine ask)
3 Likes
Leaving Cranwell wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of ACLC. I did it when we were at RAF Stafford in very grotty accommodation (most of us had a warmer and dryer night when under bashas). I’m sure that they could return to another “dead” station or a training area.
I also find it odd that a good cadet may have to choose between a promotion and being eligible (although saying it’s an “acting” promotion is always an unofficial option there)
1 Like
To be honest? I don’t know, albeit I get the fact that they must be 16 given the both physical and academic natures of the course (essentially it is a watered down version of IOT CML taught in a single week so, somewhat a bit of a pressure cooker for the cadets).
Sadly ACLC, like many other opportunities for the cadets has been screwed over by Covid.
It would be nice, post-Covid, if the powers that be relaxed the upper age limit for ACLC candidates.
1 Like
The physical aspect is another unnecessary barrier. Anyone who is unfit and/or disabled is blocked from even obtaining gold leadership in the RAFAC.
I think they should relax the rank and age restrictions (15+ imo, 1 leadership badge per year), and consider how to make it more accessible.
I’ve heard grumbles of a gold course being run at a regional level… So not sure how that mixes into the ACLC /JL mix
Sorry but I disagree. Placing someone under physical ‘stress’ very much shows up their Leadership abilities (or lack of) - and ACLC is about the Adair approach to Functional Leadership ! This is exactly what is done at Cranwell, Sandhurst, or Dartmouth.
Exceptions can (and should) be made for disabled cadets but, at the end of the day ACLC is a mirror (albeit a small one) of real Officer or NCO trg. Water it down and it would mean nothing.
My attitude as an ACLC Flt Cdr was to teach through Exs 1 and 2 (the ‘Pine Pole’ Exs on the S side of Cranwell) then to assess on the Field Exs in Vigo Wood.
The most physical aspects of the course (1.5 mile run, log run, orienteering etc) are not really assessed, though; they are all artificial. Most of the actual command tasks (or whatever you want to call them) are not physical, or mildly physical.
You don’t need to “water it down” to make it accessible. Just because someone is fat/unfit/disabled (or a combination thereof) does not mean they are unable to lead. What does it say about the ACLC organisers’ leadership that they exclude these people from leadership training?
4 Likes
On one of my ACLCs I had a cadet who was on the Autistic Spectrum - he graduated with a Merit (most cadets merely achieve a Pass). Yes we supported him, but he went through the same trg as his non autistic peers. When he succeeded in Lead 2 (and I told him why) he was over the moon). He went into Lead 3 and produced a response that was awesome.
It’s not about ‘making it accessible’, it’s about Leadership. If someone cannot take stress then they cannot lead in the Military sence (which is what ACLC is all about!).
That’s great, but you’ve missed the point. I’m talking about physically disabled people, not people with things like autism, dyslexia, OCD etc.
You don’t need to be physically fit to be a good leader.
3 Likes
Militarily? YES you do. And that’s what ACLC is about.
As I said, the physically challenging part isn’t even assessed as leadership. I’m not sure of the difference between leading and leading militarily, but I’m not sure Bomber Command in WW2 were doing press ups to ensure they led well.
There’s actually no mention of physical activity, or leading militarily, in the aims of ACLC:
• To provide leadership training for cadet NCOs or potential NCOs so that they may return to their units as better leaders.
• To teach leadership training methods to improve this training at unit level.
• To improve the standard of drill commands, especially among the less experienced cadets.
• To foster greater understanding and co-operation between the staff and cadets of both the CCF and ATC.
4 Likes
Now, all this being said. I do think that there is a place for a course like ACLC in its current format. The bigger problem is that there is no way for a cadet with a physical disability to get the gold leadership badge. We must be able to come up with another way of assessing leadership ability as I fully understand that it won’t always be possible to make reasonable adjustments to ACLC.
7 Likes
aaaaand we’re done here.
I have removed several posts that were not in line with the AUP.
1 Like