Nope i am just thinking of the empire builders that we have in the organisation who will try and keep as much power as possible.

On that note. Who allowed the AT part to just be a blanket no to self authorisation? Will this be looked at in time?

I get that some AT activities can be a higher RTL than other activities. But i can take my cadets horse riding, cross country running or go karting but cannot take them walking down to the local park.

My wing sports officer will be loving life, but the AT officer will still be pulling his hair out.


Not entirely true - you can still do basic training in a local adjacent, safe area under your own steam as long as it’s within walking distance of the unit.

The other aspect to this from an assurance perspective is it’s easy for simple, led nav exercise in the park to mission creep into an unsupervised orienteering exercise whilst it’s chucking it down…which are two levels of risk.

I’m not 100% clear on the logic of some of the choices…

Go Karting - cadets hurtling around a track at 30-40 mph… That’s fine. Low risk to life, Sqn Cdr to authorise.
Orienteering on the other hand… Hold your horses! That is dangerous! Must ensure that your WATTO signs it off.


But remember, you can take them Cross country running. Which is perfectly safe!

It must be the inclusion of a compass…
Remember - The Donald insists that we must all wash our hands after handling military compasses… Because the fool doesn’t understand the difference between radium paint and sealed gaseous tritium light sources.

Do we need an ACTO 10 discussion topic?

1 Like

It’s the same logic that decrees because you have a compass it’s AT rather than Sport!

Possibly so…

I was going to start one, but then i was hoping my answer would be quickly answered and people would move on. I forgot where i was

1 Like

Where is that written. Please show me as that would help massively!

Its in ACTO10 (in small writing).

But i couldnt get my local park on the extended footprint. As its a 10 min drive away it was deemed too far.

ACATI 02 Para 3a

I spent some time discussing with SO2 AT the definition of adjacent given that there is no real policy for the ESF concept applying to AT (although some Wings have extended it as such, it’s really only a thing for fieldcraft at the moment and needs Regional auth anyway - although there is a suggestion of a wider ESF policy being brought in). The outcome of that is that walking distance is the intent of the policy; if you need to get a vehicle to drive to the location then it’s time for an application.

Clearly the interpretation of this may differ between Wings!

1 Like

Yes, as in my mind (as well as HQAC’s) a 10 min drive does not equal ‘adjacent to the unit’.

Completely agree, i was chancing my luck by asking.

But my point is.

Why can i now take cadets to the same park and do cross country running (with no qualification in sports at all) and self authorise it.

But i cannot take them nav training or orienteering in the same park (being qualified) without someone giving the nod higher up.

To which I am afraid I do not know the answer…and I agree it seems nuts. I has a similar discussion recently about fieldcraft on a DTE. A DTE which, if operating in an AT world, would require HML / ML qualifications to lead a group over that particular terrain. But in a fieldcraft setting - just a FCI. Who hasn’t been trained or tested on nav, group management, incident management, weather… but can teach someone to paint their face. Sounds legit?

I guess becuase sports / FC are in the same place AT was 10 or more years ago before it adopted the NGB model for qualifications and just had the Competence Through Experience scheme.


I have been beating the drum every time i see the wing sports officer about getting people qualified for years. It falls on deaf ears.

Its going to take an ACF Mourne Mountain type situation where the papers pick up on us calling 999 for it to all be changed and heads to roll.

One benefit is that SMS v5 will be able to update the levels of authorisation requires far more easily than was previously the case. In theory, it should be easier to amend the procedures, with SMS helping to provide the impetus.

We need another Moulds incident to shuffle the coals and get the fires at HQAC a-burning.

I seem to recall that in about 2001/2002 we were told people would need to have NGB qualifications by 2004(?) to do things, the selling point was we could do things and as long as they were within the remit of the qualification we would not need additional authorisation.

Whatever happened to that promise? Never happened and I don’t think it was ever intended, just a selling point to make the aggro of NGB worthwhile.

Then HQAC discovered FTRS that has become a dumping ground for ex-RAF personnel to get “money for nothin’”.

Worth pointing out that we used to be trained in at least some of that stuff (group/incident management, weather, etc) when the ECO qual was a thing… oddly seems to have been dropped for reasons best known to the person who re-wrote the whole policy again.

1 Like