Does anyone have any more info on this yet?
It’s been 3 months without so much of a sniff of reason or how we fix it in the future!
Has anyone yet tried to get an exemption based on having BELA, etc?
Not just bivvying, all overnight fieldcraft that involves tenting too
Its a bloody stupid idea. Who ever thought of it needs to [color=#ff4400]GO AWAY [/color]
Anyone can stroll out and tent up by themselves. Yet join an organisation with the Motto “Venture Adventure” isnt allowed to, while some toff orifice [color=#ff4444]REMOVED[/color] prats about.
Field craft ban by the back door?
Its a bit shoddy. I suspect by now most people have heard what the issue is.
Guidance as to appropriate controls (i.e. adults close to cadets at all times, clearly knowing staff locations and availability of emergency vehicle access for instance…) could have been given within a matter of days.
An outright ban on bivvying frankly makes us look silly.
“Heard” or “suspect” yes; but we’ve not been told as far as I know.
I know, thats why I said “heard” 
The logical (and that’s where is falls over) solution is to have a BELA on the staff list for weekend. This could have been implimented as stop-gap as soon as the situation came to people’s attention, until a more convoluted solution was arrived at. However we can’t do simple, so it seems a convluted solution with more pointless poxy admin for the volunteers to wade through will be what we get.
The only problem with using a BELA would mean some of the half-wits around the Corps would start to get FMS and AT confused, which is IIRC one of the reasons ACP16 came into existence. This is why tented overnight FMS was also binned at the same time.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=19845]Its a bit shoddy. I suspect by now most people have heard what the issue is.
Guidance as to appropriate controls (i.e. adults close to cadets at all times, clearly knowing staff locations and availability of emergency vehicle access for instance…) could have been given within a matter of days.
An outright ban on bivvying frankly makes us look silly.[/quote]
Nope, not heard even a whisper about it here.
^^^^ What he said^^^^
We should change our name from the Air Training Corps to the Air Training Can’t. To paraphrase bloke on the Royle Family Venture Adventure My A****.
It’s nothing to do with BEL or any other qualification. The ban is on bivvying which you’d only carry out on deployed exercises and the like during fieldcraft training. BEL is for [I]campcraft[/I] and it would appear that you can secure the services of as many BEL’s as you like, but the ban remains (stupidly, IMHO) in force at present simply because it falls into the fieldcraft arena.
What has always gripped my p*ss are those who hold BEL’s thinking they’re the be-all-and-end-all of staying out overnight. ACP 16 and ACP 17 are different manuals for a reason. That said, I’ve always been painfully aware that there are insufficiently qualified staff out there who teach fieldcraft and I would guess that’s what has contributed to causing the ban in the first place. However, JL’s et al has been given the all clear due to the [I]‘qualifications and experience of the staff’[/I] so that may not necessarily point to BEL holders but to those with fieldcraft experience and those who hold the M qual. My personal opinion is that there ought to be a proper fieldcraft instructor qualification available based on a national standard and not left to different Wg’s to deliver their own versions. Maybe an ‘M Qual Lite’ or something similar?
Seconded.
Seconded.[/quote]
Thirded
[quote=“Gunner” post=19865][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=19851]
What has always gripped my p*ss are those who hold BEL’s thinking they’re the be-all-and-end-all of staying out overnight. ACP 16 and ACP 17 are different manuals for a reason. That said, I’ve always been painfully aware that there are insufficiently qualified staff out there who teach fieldcraft and I would guess that’s what has contributed to causing the ban in the first place. However, JL’s et al has been given the all clear due to the [I]‘qualifications and experience of the staff’[/I] so that may not necessarily point to BEL holders but to those with fieldcraft experience and those who hold the M qual. My personal opinion is that there ought to be a proper fieldcraft instructor qualification available based on a national standard and not left to different Wg’s to deliver their own versions. Maybe an ‘M Qual Lite’ or something similar?[/quote][/quote]
Isn’t the SA(M)07 a pyrotechnics/weapons course rather than a fieldcraft course? Also qualifications are one thing - experience & good judgment are quite another - just because someone is qualified does not mean that they are not one of the those that think they are above the law and more interested in doing their own thing rather than what the organisation allows.
I do have a bit of sympathy for HQAC in that sometimes the only way they can reign in the cavalier and dangerous bods is by reigning in everyone. Yes it is often an over reaction and some of the dangerous ones will carry one bivvying regardless put the policy is at least clear & simple so it is nice and unambiguous if someone breaks the rules (hopefully allowing the other CFAVs to speak up!)
Long may they rein! 
It is but you are also marked on your fieldcraft abilities which implies that the student requires a certain level of knowledge, and\or experience.
I totally agree, however, experience depends on which way we look at it. Does it mean having service experience (ie: Infantry or RAF Regiment) or does it just mean having conducted a lot of fieldcraft training during one’s ACO career? It can be difficult to quantify what ‘experience’ actually constitutes.
Thing is, HQAC do themselves no favours by keeping everyone in the dark and this is compounded by them allowing one way of staying out overnight (DEA) but not another (fieldcraft). No reason or rationale has been officially circulated so is it little wonder that the masses responsible for keeping cadets occupied during the summer months, get a little bent out of shape?
[quote=“Gunner” post=19865]It’s nothing to do with BEL or any other qualification. The ban is on bivvying which you’d only carry out on deployed exercises and the like during fieldcraft training. BEL is for [I]campcraft[/I] and it would appear that you can secure the services of as many BEL’s as you like, but the ban remains (stupidly, IMHO) in force at present simply because it falls into the fieldcraft arena.
What has always gripped my p*ss are those who hold BEL’s thinking they’re the be-all-and-end-all of staying out overnight. ACP 16 and ACP 17 are different manuals for a reason. That said, I’ve always been painfully aware that there are insufficiently qualified staff out there who teach fieldcraft and I would guess that’s what has contributed to causing the ban in the first place. However, JL’s et al has been given the all clear due to the [I]‘qualifications and experience of the staff’[/I] so that may not necessarily point to BEL holders but to those with fieldcraft experience and those who hold the M qual. My personal opinion is that there ought to be a proper fieldcraft instructor qualification available based on a national standard and not left to different Wg’s to deliver their own versions. Maybe an ‘M Qual Lite’ or something similar?[/quote]
The problem lies with HQAC, it demands no specific qualification for FMS which is completely incongrous with everything else we do. I only did a BELA because it was the minimum required to carry on taking cadets out doing what I had been doing for the previous 18 years without a qualification. So maybe as you suggest FMS needs a proper qualification, but the compromise while people get this could be an AT qualified bod just so that we can get on and get cadets out doing things. This nothing to do with a sense of superiority that you suggest, but if it’s what needed to give cadets an overnight FMS experience why not. Yes it would mean a degree of cross-over but if not doing it means no overnight FMS in bashas, until all FMS instructors get qualified after a period of “grandfather’s rights”, carry on. Life is one big compromise. The solution lies within HQAC or even 22 Gp, but the issue is not addressing this quicker. Nigh on three months in the period, when you’re more likely to look at overnghting in bashas is ridiculous.
The ability to supervise bivvying out should need special training, but common sense.
Perhaps HQAC can introduce a new common sense qual/assessment?