WRT the SAAI, I am led to believe that a lot of it is around tactics etc with weapons. What I would imagine the majority of sqn staff actually want is a basic WI course, so that they can instruct on the weapon and test the cadets and in reality is what I imagine 99.9% will do with it.
Why we can’t a have two or three tiers of opportunity for weapons instruction, is lost on me.
To me it seems that the SAAI and the SA(M)07 would be something for those who want to have advanced skills would elect to do, but I do feel we need something a little more basic, accessible and appealing to the average CFAV. But as a sqn cdr what would I know about anything to do with offering cadets opportunities. I have to work with 3 sqns currently to get cadets shooting.
I’ve heard a rumour that like the qCWHT the WI qualification could be lost and the only option would be SAAI. I realise the only option now is SAAI, but if the WI as quashed, then it would sound a veritable death knell for shooting in the Corps. I know locally we have lost 12 people able to get cadets shooting, due to the demise of the qCWHT.
As someone who has done the course I can assure you this is not the case. The only “tactics” we covered so to speak was an example lesson in the field involving firing from other positions and moving with weapons, which was included to show another aspect to the variety of ways in which training should be delivered.
What I can say is that the SAAI course is probably the best instructional technique course currently on offer to staff in the ACO and has certainly made me consider my approach to all the subjects I deliver, not just weapons.
The standard is high and so invariably there is a failure rate but this should not be viewed as a bad thing, certainly those that approached the course with the right attitude were invited to come back for assessment at a later date.
The Skill At Arms Instructor Course qualifies an individual to deliver training on any Cadet Weapon System they themselves are current on. The L98A2 is used as it is a far more complicated weapon compared to the No.8. Several of the lessons are demonstrated in part to display a variety of different instructional methods to the students and how they can be used within Weapons Training Course. - Variety is the Spice of Life.
The students will the deliver 3 Teaching Periods in part, which again allows the other students to see others interpretation of lesson delivery, I experienced an new way of delivering Lesson 7 and have adopted that myself from an ACF CFAV :!: :!: There is no Military Tactics or Fieldcraft on the course, although similar training methods can be used in that environment.
As I understand, and will be happily corrected, the SA(M)07 is a RMQ that qualifies you to act as the Exercise Commander on a move in the field etc. as this knowledge is already expected as such a WHT is for SA(SR)07.
Ex-infantry only, minimum 9yrs experience of running blank\pyro at unit level for trained soldiers. Must have held the substantive rank of Flight Sergeant or equivalent. Para training desirable but not essential.
Be able to pass a Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment (ROFA) in 1hr 15mins.
Must be able to drink copious quantities of port and wear headdress in accordance with ‘ally’ rules.
Must have lopsided moustache and eyebrows that meet in the middle.
5 years. Requals take place every 3mths thereafter.[/quote]
Sounds great in theory, but how many people will this apply to in the ACO?
A better option would be to develop a course that fits more people, such as an extension to SAAI that gives some progression.
It could still be filtered to allow only those with a certain level of experience through, but it would mean more people could actually do it!
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=15144]Is it just me or does anyone else think that it is somewhat refreshing to see an element of our HQ officially (well at least sort of officially) answering questions, and taking the time to reply to comments?
Thanks, and I hope more of your colleagues do likewise.[/quote]
Thanks – so do we.
That’s commendable indeed We’ve only had three or four WIs come through the course.
It’s pretty hard to offer any solid advice without knowing what standard you’re at. Some of the WIs we’ve seen are very good, and the course sould serve to update them to the latest methods and policies, while some WIs are abysmal and would have no real advantage over non-WI candidates.
The best advice we can give is:
[ul]
[li]Read the Pamphlet[/li]
[li]Read it again[/li]
[li]Memorise the bits in the pam that need memorising, to the point where you can reel them off without thinking.[/li]
[li]Practce your EDI[/li]
[/ul]
It’s impossible to explain fully what students tend to fail on, as you’d need to have a clear understanding of the course content for it to make any sense.
We can say that nearly every student has told us that they felt underprepared and that we should make the level of pamphlet-knowledge and personal weapon handling skills clearer in the precourse materials. I’m afraid we’re at a loss as to how we can make the Guide for Candidates any clearer on the point!
Perhaps the best way to prepare would be to deliver a lesson and have someone who’s passed the course watch – they should be able to point out some areas for improvement. Alternatively, get in touch with us by email and we’ll let you know if there are any instructors or ADS local to you who could lend a hand.
Candidates must be qualified as SAAI, and to begin with, must have a definite need of the qualification (SATTs, Wing Fieldcraft Officers, CCF(RAF) and the like). Do bear in mind that it will probably take a while before this is widely available. After all, what’s the point in holding SA(M)07 until policy and training materials are in place to allow us to run structured training with blank ammunition.
The course is 4 days, although that may be extended to 5 after trials.
This isn’t the case – we don’t teach any tactics, but we do expect candidates to have a basic (read ACP16-level) understanding of fire control orders (Sorry, we mean indication of Objects :ohmy: ).
[quote=“ghe2”]What I would imagine the majority of sqn staff actually want is a basic WI course, so that they can instruct on the weapon and test the cadets and in reality is what I imagine 99.9% will do with it.
Why we can’t a have two or three tiers of opportunity for weapons instruction, is lost on me.[/quote]
There are ongoing discussions around the possibility of a multi-tier system to allow CFAVs to teach and test on small bore and air rifles, but the standard required of full-bore service rifle instructors can’t and won’t be diluted.
Do bear in mind that all of our instructors also teach cadets, and both us and SAAIs we’ve qualified have found that in many cases they enjoy a good solid course of L98A2 training more than small-bore firing – particularly if it’s followed by structured LFMT. In other words, good IWT should be seen as a part of the cadet experience in it’s own right, not simply as a means to begin LFMT, although that’s clearly very important.
We’ll come back to you on this one at some point, but despite what some of you may think of us at HQAC, we’re not foolish enough to end the WI qualification without considering the impact on cadet training in detail.
Thanks! We’ve had this feedback from a number of students.
That’s commendable indeed We’ve only had three or four WIs come through the course.[/quote]
There were a couple of WIs who weren’t happy with me as a young CI having just completed my course saying how things were done now, whilst others were more than interested, and I feel that these interested do not need to attend the course, as they update their knowledge and methods by proxy.
How can someone who is not qualified deliver a lesson, or should this be done with already trained cadets? I think its great that you are suggesting that students get in touch pre-course, to get some 1-1 with a member of the team, something which could well make the course less daunting, and potentially see more candidates on courses, and a higher pass rate as individuals are better prepared.
I have suggested that people interested join my IWT courses, so that they can see how I deliver the lessons, which will no doubt be different to how they were taught as all instructors have their own methods. I shall also be asking them to lead a practice period, IAW PAM 21C, as this will give them some hands on experience of leading a SAA Period.
Candidates must be qualified as SAAI, and to begin with, must have a definite need of the qualification (SATTs, Wing Fieldcraft Officers, CCF(RAF) and the like). Do bear in mind that it will probably take a while before this is widely available. After all, what’s the point in holding SA(M)07 until policy and training materials are in place to allow us to run structured training with blank ammunition.[/quote]
My bold, this is an excellent point, and it really is a breath of fresh air to see this type of comment from HQAC. Given that this course is starting to be run and will be producing qualified individuals, with this policy be forthcoming in the near future, is this to be the fabled ACP 16 Vol 2?
This isn’t the case – we don’t teach any tactics, but we do expect candidates to have a basic (read ACP16-level) understanding of fire control orders (Sorry, we mean indication of Objects :ohmy: ).[/quote]
:lol: :worthy:
[quote=“acoctt” post=15214][quote=“ghe2”]What I would imagine the majority of sqn staff actually want is a basic WI course, so that they can instruct on the weapon and test the cadets and in reality is what I imagine 99.9% will do with it.
Why we can’t a have two or three tiers of opportunity for weapons instruction, is lost on me.[/quote]
There are ongoing discussions around the possibility of a multi-tier system to allow CFAVs to teach and test on small bore and air rifles, but the standard required of full-bore service rifle instructors can’t and won’t be diluted.[/quote]
Personally I would question why someone not at the standard to deliver Full Bore Service Rifle, should be in a position to deliver small bore training, nor can I see why an individual would want to be limited in that way. L98A2 IWT is a weekend, so someone could come into teh organisation, do 3 weekends of weapons training, and come out the other side an SAAI. There will more than likely be a gap between the IWT and the SAAI Course, as they get comfortable with the weapon. Which creates the question, do our staff get enough hands on time with the weapons system or is it just an end of range day blat?
We’ll come back to you on this one at some point, but despite what some of you may think of us at HQAC, we’re not foolish enough to end the WI qualification without considering the impact on cadet training in detail.[/quote]
qCWHT was never a course offered by my local SATT, TMK, and I would argue that the impact that lost qualification has would be minimal. I have not known a Range Day with a WI/SAAI who can conduct WHTs for those who require it, as people with those quals are likely to be escorting staff.
My experience of the course was that our wing made it essential to have some pre course training before we were allowed to attend. This was invaluable as it gave us a little insight as to what is required. The course is very concentrated and in depth, it has made me a better RCO and has weapons training more appealing to the cadets through my delivery of training methods, key is to know the PAM. If you know the PAM and remember all the safety bits and your own drills are good. I passed my first practice, but completely FUBAR’d my second, and thought that’s it, but i managed to do an excellent final lesson with minor critiques and managed to pass the course.
But, even current WI’s struggled on this course, a couple on my course never actually passed and subsequently had their WI qual revoked as they were deemed not safe/suitable to instruct. The course officer has the overall say, and was very keen on you having pre-course training, and was flipping his lid over what training people had received and the fact the WSO’s had signed them off as suitable to attend the course. People’s training varied from just sitting down with a weapon and having a play, right through to my training of having OC region SATT go through it with us. Needless to say all of us who had the training all passed with one recommended for ADS.
I would also suggest that two levels of qualification, one for ‘simple’ weapons and target shooting, that would cover Bolt Action Firearms and Air Rifles used only on ranges, and a second for complex weapon systems like the L98A2 and Military Firing Disciplines and Blank firing exercises would cater to both of the shooting camps, and allow progression for cadet shooters, without unduly limiting the numbers of staff available.
WIs or SAAIs who are keen, keep updated and regularly utilise their qualifications are not in the main the problem. Its those who “dabble” and fall out of genuine currancy.
I have heard that there are moves afoot to have a similar re-qual/re-assessment to that of RCOs (i.e. have to have delivered a number of lessons over a period of time, with a possible re-assessment at the 4/5 yearly stage). Indeed if you see the new style 7257s there is a space to record weapons instruction given.
redowling said he was a qualified WI, so can instruct cadets under that qualification.
This is indeed the case, although details of the policy or timescales are yet to be agreed.
Much as we’d like to say yes, to avoid the situation that arose with the imminent (3-year) issue of AP1358C, we’ll answer: No, not in the near future at all.
The problem with having a separate qual for bolt action rifles is that in the next few years in may not be needed as it is, with the No.8 finishing in 2015, and with no replacement thought of as of yet it would seem pointless, and with L81 availability depends on what wing your in. So would it worth having a whole course tailored to the air rifle, unless you run one that allows you to instruct and RCO.
My thought for the way forward is to purchase the L41 conversion kits, this is apparently what the ACF are doing so the cadets must be L98 trained anyway to operate them. It is a good idea, however we are not allowed to hold section 5 firearms at unit level apparently, so the future is looking bleak.
As to the major inventory exercise involving our weapons, i feel we might not even see them again at unit level, as our earliest estimate to get them back is April/May, and given the fact that they are due to be pulled 6 months down the line, is it worth all the time effort and money to re-distribute them back to only collect them in 6 months later?
The impact of removing the WI qualification could be looked at from a couple of angles.
Suddenly the ATC may lose a large number of instructors.
This would only be the case for those who haven’t/couldn’t requalify as SAAIs.
There will undoubtedly be a good notice period giving sufficient time for most any WI who takes their role serious to get on an SAAI course.
There may be a few who can’t get time, but unfortunately that’s the way it is. Hopefully they’ll continue to maintain an interest and will requal in the future.
That then leaves:
Those who either don’t want to requal because they feel they’re wasting time to get a tick in the box for something they can already do.
Those who are incapable of passing the course.
The reason SAAI has been brought in (and will eventually be made compulsory) is because the standard of weapons instruction in the Corps was woefully under par.
The quality of training varies wildly. Some SATTs are better than others. I hear that Scot SATT are pretty good!
My SATT on the other hand were not so good. At all. My WI course was seriously lacking.
As a result, the difference in the quality of instruction between many of our WIs and a SAAI is like night and day.
Since the CTT appeared I understand that the SATTs are improving; and as SATTs are no longer qualifying WIs we can be certain that most of the SAAIs will maintain a consistent, high standard.
Whilst some might see losing a large number of WIs who don’t requalify as a bad thing, I see it as a way to separate out those who are competent and keen to improve, from those who shouldn’t be instructing weapons at all.
If people are the right stuff for the job then they will qualify as SAAIs.
I’d be lying if I said I’m not looking forward to seeing a few people no longer delivering weapons training.
this is what i understand however it is still up to the individual to have the integrity and diligence to follow what they have been taught
after all what is the difference between a WI and SAAI post qualification?
they both deliever the same lessons and able to conduct a WHT…it is still up to the individual to follow what they have been taught.
Not being a WI i cannot comment on what standard of depth went into the teaching element, however for the SAAI it is set at a very high standard - arguably the SAAI teaches staff correctly while the WI course didnt.
better instruction via the CTT only raises the SAAI ability to pass the course, and not to continue in the same vien.
I am pleased to say that unlike Mike Whiskey (who i think should be praised for admitting it woudl be inappropriate to teach having fallen out of currency) i have been able on a monthly basis almost to use my SAAI qualification. (i’ve just checked my diary, out of 15 months i have 10 examples where i have used it, in most cases a double weekend of L98A2 training)
As such i have been able to maintain the standards demonstrated at the SAAI course. recently i was with another SAAI who clearly wasn’t as “slick” with his instruction and showed he doesnt get to instruct as often resulting in the skills fade
that skills fade is no different to poor integrity of a SAAI/WI - both can be as damaging to the message and quality of the training delivered!
We’ve only had three or four WIs come through the course.