While I could get a bit defensive about those comments being demeaning to FCIs and my own professionalism, I can actually understand the comparison. That’s probably how the AT world originally felt all those years ago.
However point 1 is that if you introduced AT quals into the requirements for FCI, you would see an even greater reduction in training output than has been seen in the last 9 months and potentially an exodus. It’s been difficult enough getting many to requal as it is. I’m not just being difficult but, while there is some crossover, there’s a swathe of FT folk with no interest in AT, and we all know how many feel about (re)training.
That said, while the FCI courses I’ve witnessed have touched on some of the factors @MattB mentioned it’s possible that’s just a hangover from the old course. However, I’ve only seen the upgrade part…
Theoretically though, is there also an argument that between FAW/AFA, Climatic Injuries, and an exhaustive EASP and RA, staff and Cadet briefs with IA Drills, radio comms, etc there’s good enough cover for incident management? I don’t know if anyone has yet, but presumably it’s possible to fail someone unsuitable as an FCI.
Bivvying and harbour areas are included, perhaps a nav test should be too? Are we acting on the assumption of knowledge to 1st Class level?
My impression as well is there’s greater scope and focus on independence within AT - typically over a larger geographical area than an average FTX. Whereas there’s a greater instructor mobility across the area on an FTX as either safety sup, EnFor, etc. Maybe. Could be wrong on that and potentially an irrelevant comparison for many DTE areas when considering AT.
All that said, I preferred a 2-tier system with only some qualified to act as ECO. I can foresee problems with the currency requirements down the line.
But that’s only one person - I can’t have 10 groups operating in LL / HML / ML terrain supervised by unqualified people, just because I have someone who is qualified overseeing.
I never considered the issue from the point of view that as an ECO, I was unqualified to do the things I did. I just found it maddening that, for instance, as a Paddlesports instructor I am qualified to take cadets in canoes down a river, but because I don’t have a BEL or LLA, if I get out of the river, and tried to camp, I’m not ‘qualified’ to supervise those cadets sleeping in tents.
However, I am qualified to have those same cadets sleep under a basha sheet?
Not sure we are off ACTO 10 as it’s all about the level of approval required. Slightly tenuous perhaps…
But I still have to have all of that (radio comms aside perhaps, but even that is used in some circumstances) in the AT world, PLUS the qualifications to evidence my competence.
The size of the geographical area is irrelevant. Running a remotely supervised, walking orienteering exercise (which can be equated roughly to an FTX in terms of what is being done - groups bouncing around checkpoints on their own, possibly in the dark) still requires an appropriate qualification for the environment regardless of how small the area is.
So in the AT world for a small simple DTE / lowland terrain then each instructor would need to have done 2 days training, 2 days assessment plus 20 days of personal experience (Lowland Leader).
For a more remote DTE (Dartmoor / Leek) then you are looking at HML / ML (up to 50 days training/assessment/personal experience) to run an AT exercise which is similar in scope to an FTX, and you’d be similar in terms of ratios.
But that same graduation does not exist in the FCI world. I’m not demeaning the professionalism of the instructors (I’ve done my fair share of ECOing and FCIing, although not recently - the face painting was a dig ) but I found it interesting to see the comparison of how an (ostensibly similar) exercise in the two domains requires wholly different levels of demonstration of competence on the part of the instructors involved.
That’s fair, although possibly more an artefact of the NGB quals not really being thought of as working in that way.
I mean most people would agree that if you had - for example - a wild camp of 50 cadets (somehow) with two MLs and four unqualled staff that such an arrangement is probably perfectly safe: it’s just that it’s such an odd situation from an AT point of view that there’s no point trying to create sub-rules for that sort of thing. AT - almost axiomatically - involves small groups geographically separated and so each will require a qualified instructor.
I’m not sure they would. Maybe the actual camping element (in good weather - bad weather might increase the need to get the shelter up well, quickly, which would be difficult to supervise with 2 qualified people and 25 tents to be put up) - but the walking in bit? Two competent personnel supervising 25 cadets and 2 unqualified staff each? Not so sure about that part…
My point was that whilst the risks in FT are largely the same as LL territory, the incident management process would actually be significantly different.
In a typical AT exped, you can reasonably be expected to be on your own with the cadets a significant time and difference from assistance, and so a high level is needed from every member of supervisory staff.
In an FT context, the ECO should be close by all exercising troops and able to attend any incident - and the exercising cadets should be only a few hundred metres from vehicular access to evacuate, etc. Therefore as long as they have relatively competent staff looking out for them (and remember that they should have done their climatic injuries training) I’m not sure I see an issue.
Back to the original (ish) point. I was previously involved in some of the scoping for changing ACTO 10 to be useful. I did ask for us to be able to have the ability to approve more things but the command board explained there wasn’t the appetite at the time to open up the organisation to risk like that. We all know dodgy OCs and those that would do what they want, when they want, regardless of the consequences and so by having a check and balance on some of that it frees up a bit of that risk. Obviously you can’t rule out stupidity which is where some of the audit function comes from I.e. SMEs should be going and visiting activities to check they’re being run as described to help people get it right and do it better.
Where those high RTL and low RTL activities fall is a tad arbitrary, but it’s based on logic. We do a lot more AT and as a whole it carries greater risks than sports does. If you start saying well you can do x under AT but not y you start bringing in confusion and it becomes more complex to track. Far easier for a blanket “seek approval”.
I worked out that with ACTO 10, a minimum of 30% of all my activities across a year could be authorised by me. We do a lot of AT and other high risk things so that might be a bit skewed, but in principle the saving is a brilliant start point.
Once we can use it well, and people toe the line there is scope to expand but if people take the Mickey then it will be clamped down.
Let’s look at positives - I can now with very little notice at all do all of those low level events without seeking approval from above - that has to be better than before right?!
Just booking into my first ‘activity’ on the new SMS, and looking at the ‘traffic lights’ on the main screen, and although it’s listed as classroom training do we really need consent forms for a staff meeting on a unit?
) but I found it interesting to see the comparison of how an (ostensibly similar) exercise in the two domains requires wholly different levels of demonstration of competence on the part of the instructors involved.