It may not be fair what i am saying, but there is a serious imbalance between the intention in the assessment criteria and some of the staff who pump out blue badges.
If you can both hand on heart tell me that it is not common right through the corps where these are handed out like confetti, i will personally ring my wing commander and kick up a fuss.
Heartstart literally is an attendance course
Pre d of e feels like it
Agreed, but then thatās common across a lot of things in the corps!
I think that the blue bar is set too high in many instances. Iād include comms in that, and perhaps leadership too. Blue aviation is great on paper but too difficult to achieve for what it actually is. Marksman badges at basic levels would benefit from a slight relaxation of the criteria too.
We also need to make sure that as much of the blue PTT as possible can be delivered relatively easily at squadron level without specialist staff. I think comms falls at this hurdle but there is little we can do to relax this aspect of first aid or shooting.
Not sure I agree with that - Iām one of the few who donāt mind the whole ābadge proliferationā thing, but I do think that a badge should signify a genuine achievement. I think that Blue Comms is reasonable as far as where the bar should be (and YFA as a blue first aid badge).
The PTT seems to be driven , at least in part, by a desire to move away from the old, bare brassards and into a world where badges cam be achieved earlier and newer cadets can get some sense of achievement more simply.
In that world, blue could easily be that first step, with the more meaty achievements represented by bronze and higher.
Do you think blue wings represent an achievement by a cadet? Personally I think they simply represent an experience youāve had (and thereās no badges for AT, annual camps, clay target shooting etc).
I think the shooting badges are about right, in whatās expected of them, although I would turn the system around so that the colour of the badge would represent the level of Marksman rather than the weapon system which just doesnāt seem right.
Personally I would make Radio Easier. They are happy for other sections to simply be āpass the elements in First Classā so why are we then having to have Comms need to be signed off by someone else?
There definitely should be an extension from whatās included in 1st Class, which you then need to assessā¦ Just like you need to assess Blue Leadership or judge the Blue DofE evidence.
The Blue Radio assessment is not that difficult, but there is A LOT of content across the 1st Class and Blue presentations - some of it pretty technical, most not needed to simply use a radio.
No, you have to prove you can do CPR adequately on the dummy.
although i agree it is surprising the number who still fail after the days training, at least a third, if not half is practical basedā¦
I also agree there isnāt a huge step up from First Class training - however the number of Cadets who could pass the blue badge assessment without the training per course i could count on one handā¦
ACTO008 says there is no assessment but regardless, iād be impressed if anyone ever failed.
Maybe because their heads are full of information which has little bearing on their ability to correctly and safely use a handheld radio and understand basic conceptsā¦
Bearing in mind Blue is supposed to be aimed at 12-13 year olds going through or just passed their First Class, thereās a lot of content and detail.
maybe but short of giving the blue badge at the first class level - iām not sure how the blue badge could be made simplier.
in my opinion the jump from first class > blue > bronze for radio at least is too small as there is a lot of revision of the previous subject - in terms of practical ability (the assessment) there is only small increases in complexity
however the theory side is higher and perhaps this is what value the badge offers?
Would this not be for the best though? Either this, or take comms out of first class entirely?
It seems to me that the radio world has never fully adapted to the PTS idea, just made some cosmetic changes to their old system. It is time for a proper rewrite.
Think we may have to agree to disagree on that one then - I canāt see the point in giving out a badge for āpass bits of first classā, when we already give out a badge for passing first class!
Blow the ACTO; our cadets are assessed to ensure ability to operate the dummy. Maybe a case of where we donāt try to not do what we are supposed to:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
HeartStart is a BHF course which is perpetual and has no assessment. The mechanism of training includes an opportunity for the students to practice the techniques and demonstrate understanding, but there is no formal assessment and it cannot be failed. It is about getting basic skills out into the community, not āearningā a badge!
When pinched and used as a low-level staff first aid qualification it tends to have some level of expectation/assessment and a 3-year life assigned to it.
During which time you monitor and retrain as required until they are able to meet the standard laid out in the Resus Council Guidelines. That in mind, Heartstart covers compression only CPR for when someone is unwilling or unable to perform the breathsā¦ therefore, thatās an inferred minimum standard for the training outcome, but if you can coach them into being able to give the breaths then even better.
They might not have to pass an assessment, but Iām darn well going to make as certain as possible that anyone I train is as capable as they can possibly be to carry out the skills taught.
As for someone failingā¦ with it being an attendance course, they fail if they arenāt there for the whole course. Iām still going to be looking for attitude towards training and whether or not someone is a disruptive influence. Itās never come to it, but I retain the option to boot someone out and make them attend in full again. For cadets, I wonāt trust them to go on any external courses until they prove they can focus, apply themselves, and behave on internal ones. But thatās just me being hypothetically mean and nasty and not strictly relevant.