Ammo difficulties

[cygnus_maximus]

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3178]
Personally this restriction is a complete nonsense in terms of ATC shooting and requires the head shooting man at HQAC to sprinkle some reality dust over the MoD.[/quote]

I cannot dispute your logic and several others on here know that returns have been sent to Wgs and Regions for the head shooting lady at HQAC to put the ACO’s case forward. I am sure that case won’t be a simple ‘this policy is nonsense’, but a measured response detailing the effect it will have on shooting across the whole of the ACO. I would be very surprised if our ACF and SCC colleagues are not doing the same.

We need to remember that this policy doesn’t just apply to the ACO, the RAF or to cadet forces, it applies to everyone in the military and whilst we understand that moving a few thousand rounds of .22 is no major issue in the big swing of things, Joe Public sees part-time cadet staff moving explosives. OK, call it a PR exercise, but maintaining the good reputation of the organisation (MoD in general) is key and that’s why we have to toe this particular line.

Hopefully, the powers that be (MoD) will see sense and relax the requirements for minor moves, but it won’t be for a while at least until the dust settles on the incident itself.

[wdimagineer2b]

@cygnus maximus

whilst we understand that moving a few thousand rounds of .22 is no major issue in the big swing of things, Joe Public sees part-time cadet staff moving explosives.

I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here?

Joe Pulbic doesn’t see anything. Generally, there should never be an instance where the public are aware that the occupants of a vehicle are cadet staff transporting ammunition. We have no requirement to display placards and if anyone were unnecessarily advertising the load they’re carring then they’re somewhat missing the point of ‘security’.

@cygnus maximus

OK, call it a PR exercise, but maintaining the good reputation of the organisation (MoD in general) is key

This has nothing to do with maintaining a good reputation in the eyes of the public. The public won’t be made aware of this change. Noone at the MoD is going to release a communiqué to the press saying “in light of the incident all movements of ammunition will now have TWO cars with FOUR personnel…look what a wonderful job we’re doing of making things safer…”

This is all down to someone, somewhere, failing to realise that two suitably qualified personnel escorting ammunition is not the same as ‘leaving an unguarded train parked on the track for an hour and finding that some yobbos have broken into one of the cars that just happened to contain some explosives’…
and thinking that making it 4 people in two cars will somehow restore the balance.

[glass_half_empty_2]

@incubus

Are you talking about the Ancillary Range Duties (ARD) course?

No the one for carriage of dangerous goods.

[anon72613902]

The ‘Consigning Ammunition to Ranges’ course ran by an instructor who holds Q-X-AR. It’s half a day long.

[Batfink]

If it’s VR(T) for us, is the ACF is Ruperts only too… and what about the poor SCC?

[steve679]

@incubus

Can we move back to Civvy Rules and dispense with a lot of this faff please?

surely that will be easy if we use SNCOs as they are not counted as “service personnel” [/tongue and cheek]

@cygnus maximus

The slightly saving grace, but also a potentially daft thing, is that if you are transporting weapons and ammunition, you can use the two people carrying your weapons (VR(T) of course in this case) as ‘escorts’ for your ammunition provided the vehicles travel in convoy.

i always took this as common practise, certianly is in our Wing on the understanding the passenger in each car is the escort for the driver, and the two in one car escorted the other…

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3178]We have been told that ADR and SAA aren’t range qualifications, so you could in effect have 4 people required just to drive or sit and listen to the radio. Hardly effective use of anyone’s time, when you can have the people with the range qualifications doing all of it. You can’t even be ammo orderly with ADR as I believe that’s SAA.
[/quote]

ADR is for carrying ammo in a vehicle
SAA* - Skill at Arms, is the “new” WI course

ARD - Ancillary Range Duties include safety supervisor and ammo orderly

out of interest, to those Sqns with armourers and hold ammo (which is not our Sqn)
who deliver your rounds? I predict RAF armourers from your local/parent station…how often are they Officers?
in all my years of visiting the Armoury i am yet to come across an Officer, always been a SNCO and his SAC, although i will admit i’ve generally only dealt with the “duty armourer” on the weekends…

*blonde moment, i realise you’re talking about SAA - Small arms ammunition!

[Leeroy]

@Batfink

If it’s VR(T) for us, is the ACF is Ruperts only too… and what about the poor SCC?

One would imagine an outright ban on movements as none of their CFAVs are classed as “military”

[quote=“Gunner”]
The ‘Consigning Ammunition to Ranges’ course ran by an instructor who holds Q-X-AR. It’s half a day long.[/quote]

Driver Awareness Training is probably what the majority of people will know it as. If you’ve completed that training and you’re VR(T) with a current CTC then you’re able to be “one of the four”. The AR Qualification is a 3 day course at Cosford.

@cygnus maximus

I cannot dispute your logic and several others on here know that returns have been sent to Wgs and Regions for the head shooting lady at HQAC to put the ACO’s case forward. I am sure that case won’t be a simple ‘this policy is nonsense’, but a measured response detailing the effect it will have on shooting across the whole of the ACO. I would be very surprised if our ACF and SCC colleagues are not doing the same.

Will find out the ACF view this weekend but you’re correct returns have been requested by TG5 to gauge the level of movements in each wing along with the impact the changes will have. Hopefully that report will get us back to how we were!

[incubus]

Oh, and both the main and the escort vehicle need to be MT vehicles (green fleet or white fleet)!

[Baldrick]

@Leeroy

[quote=“Batfink” post=3185]If it’s VR(T) for us, is the ACF is Ruperts only too… and what about the poor SCC?

One would imagine an outright ban on movements as none of their CFAVs are classed as “military”[/quote]

I heard that the SCC had been outright banned from shooting before this anyway, after someone lost a rifle somewhere.

What I find odd about this is how VR(T) staff are considered military personnel for this purpose. Considering we’re apparently not service personnel for the purposes of flying in service aircraft! We should be counting our blessings we can move ammo at all.

[cygnus_maximus]

@wdimagineer2b

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=3180]whilst we understand that moving a few thousand rounds of .22 is no major issue in the big swing of things, Joe Public sees part-time cadet staff moving explosives.

I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here?

Joe Pulbic doesn’t see anything. Generally, there should never be an instance where the public are aware that the occupants of a vehicle are cadet staff transporting ammunition. We have no requirement to display placards and if anyone were unnecessarily advertising the load they’re carring then they’re somewhat missing the point of ‘security’.

@cygnus maximus

OK, call it a PR exercise, but maintaining the good reputation of the organisation (MoD in general) is key

This has nothing to do with maintaining a good reputation in the eyes of the public. The public won’t be made aware of this change. Noone at the MoD is going to release a communiqué to the press saying “in light of the incident all movements of ammunition will now have TWO cars with FOUR personnel…look what a wonderful job we’re doing of making things safer…”

This is all down to someone, somewhere, failing to realise that two suitably qualified personnel escorting ammunition is not the same as ‘leaving an unguarded train parked on the track for an hour and finding that some yobbos have broken into one of the cars that just happened to contain some explosives’…
and thinking that making it 4 people in two cars will somehow restore the balance.[/quote]

The original loss has been reported in the open media, therefore Joe Public DOES know about it and the important thing is that the MEDIA know about it. Fair enough, there are other things going on in the world at the moment focusing attention elsewhere, but just wait until news gets a bit thin or a similar Government security ‘lapse’ occurs, the journalists will quite happily resurrect this and you can bet that they have a pretty good idea how we have moved ammunition in the past.

I can well imagine that some of our ‘quality’ newspapers such as the Mail and the Express (tongue firmly in cheek) will happily report their ‘version or interpretation’ of this issue and they will most likely fail to distinguish uniformed CFAVs from cadets in their report; the press will make it ‘sensational’, they will have a pop at some part of Government and they think it will sell papers. Imagine the headline ‘Cadets Allowed to Handle Explosives’, and the words, ‘this paper can reveal that part-time cadets are routinely allowed to handle deadly explosives including transporting lethal ammunition on public roads in unmarked vehicles’.

The MoD has acted to as they have to show that they want to stop something similar happening again and it’s not about someone, somewhere failing to realise that two suitably qualified personnel escorting ammunition is not the same as ‘leaving an unguarded train parked on the track for an hour and finding that some yobbos have broken into one of the cars that just happened to contain some explosives’. OK, I agree that the MoD will not actively publicise this policy and it may well be over the top and restrictive, from OUR perspective, but they have to be seen to be doing something to prevent a recurrence. Their reply to any questions about explosives transportation security could now be along the lines of ‘transportation of all explosives is carried out by military personnel separately escorted by MoD police or other military staff’.

We all hope that this policy will be pragmatically amended in our favour, but do not bet on it!

[SVS]

[quote=“steve679” post=3194]
out of interest, to those Sqns with armourers and hold ammo (which is not our Sqn)
who deliver your rounds? I predict RAF armourers from your local/parent station…how often are they Officers?
in all my years of visiting the Armoury i am yet to come across an Officer, always been a SNCO and his SAC, although i will admit i’ve generally only dealt with the “duty armourer” on the weekends…[/quote]

They will never be officers as there is no such thing in the RAF as an armament officer. There are engineering officers who head up an AEF (Armament engineering Flight) but they are not armourers and certainly don’tget involved with the nitty gritty of ATC visits/weapon issues/ammo drop offs etc.

There is no requirement in the RAF for officers to be present in a class 1 move, only servicemen, so it only applies to you as I guess they (vrt officers) are the closest thing you have to “servicemen”.

[SVS]

@Leeroy

returns have been requested by TG5 to gauge the level of movements in each wing along with the impact the changes will have. [color=#ff0000]Hopefully that report will get us back to how we were![/color]

The only way that will happen is if it happens across the entire MoD. The whole reason we are in this mess is the SoS for Defense said there will not be two tiers of security being implemented. There is a big concern across government about the security of MoD weapons and ammunition and other restrictions are afoot. But I’m not going to be the one to blow that into the open yet.

[incubus]

[quote=“sirvicalsmeer” post=3199]There is no requirement in the RAF for officers to be present in a class 1 move, only servicemen, so it only applies to you as I guess they (vrt officers) are the closest thing you have to “servicemen”.[/quote]That is exactly the reason. I would think that appropriately trained/cleared service helpers would also count.

[Perry_Mason]

Here’s a thought - how does this apply to organisations which fall under the MOD umbrella… but are not military? Such as MPGS, Modplod etc?

[SVS]

It applies to every organisation that comes under the MoD. Indeed if you have MoDP they can be used as the escort.

[talon]

@Baldrick

I heard that the SCC had been outright banned from shooting before this anyway, after someone lost a rifle somewhere.

Last I heard they couldn’t even use rifles for SAA - not even those belonging to another cadet force.

[cygnus_maximus]

@incubus

[quote=“sirvicalsmeer” post=3199]There is no requirement in the RAF for officers to be present in a class 1 move, only servicemen, so it only applies to you as I guess they (vrt officers) are the closest thing you have to “servicemen”.[/quote]That is exactly the reason. I would think that appropriately trained/cleared service helpers would also count.

It’s any military personnel and in our case, RAFVR(T) officers are ‘military’ (discuss) as they are subject to QRs (RAF) and the Armed Force Act 2006; ATC WOs/SNCOs and CIs are not.

@Perry Mason

Here’s a thought - how does this apply to organisations which fall under the MOD umbrella… but are not military? Such as MPGS, Modplod etc?

I believe that MPGS soldiers are re-enlisted to the Army on Local Service Engagements so they will be subject to the Act too. I don’t know the formal status of the MoD police, but I think they have the same powers as civ pol wrt MoD property and personnel.

The MoD can formally discipline us (stand by for a thread on how/results/etc on this) so we can be nailed to a wall should anything go wrong.

[MattB]

MPGS are FTRS, so they’re at least as ‘military’ in terms of regulations as we are!

[cygnus_maximus]

@MattB

MPGS are FTRS, so they’re at least as ‘military’ in terms of regulations as we are!

MPGS are Regular, Local Service, not FTRS - slight difference. http://www.army.mod.uk/agc/provost/1242.aspx

For info, FTRS posts are generally digital posts, created in order to retain essential skills and/or experience and are for limited, but renewable, terms. As Reservists, FTRS do not get subsidised FQs, or medical and dental treatment. Local Service is also a renewable engagement, but personnel are contracted to only serve in a particular location; they are entitled to Service accommodation, medical and dental etc.

But yes, they are at least as ‘military’ in terms of regulations as we are, although I suspect they would not be all that happy being compared to us in any way!!

[alexw]

@incubus

Can we move back to Civvy Rules and dispense with a lot of this faff please?

So would this edict affect Squadron’s who have their own non service weapons, and purchase Civvy ammunition for these weapons from a Gunsmith’s? There is a form (number I’ve forgotten) you need from WHQ authorising you to do this if you do not hold a Civvy Firearm License, but given the purchase and transportation is entirely Civvy, does this present an avenue, albeit for Squadron’s with NSW, to keep shooting when their military stock runs out?