What I love is the way the ACO makes a big thing of how important the ex-Service CFAV’s are. At our Boards we get reminded about how important the qualifications we bring to the ACO are. And yet, it truly feels it’s a pick and choose game. I feel for the likes of Gunner and TopCat whose range quals are not accepted. I shall think myself lucky that my Wing Shooting Officer is an ex-Regular and knows the benefits of transferring them over.
The drill instruction side of things is exactly the same. I believe it’s a few select members of the ACO who see their Pace Sticks as statements or as badges of office and they want to try to make it something extra special that hoops need to be jumped through to get!! It’s pathetic!
Should I from now on not use my grouping templates on the range? They are merely training aids too.
I will not go over the head of my WWO because he has been exceptionally supportive of me; is aware of my abilities, skills and attributes and positively utilizes them. To do so would be to betray his trust. But I would understand if others in mine and Zinggy’s situation took it to a higher authority!!
I lol’d at the comparison between P company and the DI course. Obviously it’s changed a lot in the last few years.
I wasn’t comparing the two courses but the fact that you earn wings by doing the course which you can wear and as a DI you earn a pace stick but cant use it even though it has a purpose as a training aid unlike para wings
[quote=“Gunner” post=16157]As I’ve often quoted on here, I had the same issue as Topcat. I came to the Corps with a SA(B)90 ticket and the local SATT tried to make me jump through all manner of hoops but settled in the end, for me doing their 4-yearly requal under the guise of ‘conversion’.
They even threatened to remove my qual if I didn’t join the SATT, their rationale being that ‘only SATT members can hold a SA(B)90’. When I reminded them that they could only remove it on the grounds of lack of competency or currency; and I challenged them to do either, they backed-off. I still exercise the qual today but it’s indicative of what people have to go through just like RS and Zinggy are experiencing now.
No wonder fewer and fewer ex-service personnel are coming into this organization.[/quote]
Not the case around here. I did a Basic Coaching Course with a bootie Corporal, who was in the process of being discharged and joining the ATC (already an SI).
To quote the SATT bloke: ‘You’ve got a B Qual? So you don’t have to come and do our course. Unless you really want to?’
I think they just wanted him to do the Basic Coaching Course as a quick brief on cadet shooting and a way to make sure he knew all the relevant bits direct from the SATT.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=16162][quote=“Gunner” post=16157]As I’ve often quoted on here, I had the same issue as Topcat. I came to the Corps with a SA(B)90 ticket and the local SATT tried to make me jump through all manner of hoops but settled in the end, for me doing their 4-yearly requal under the guise of ‘conversion’.
They even threatened to remove my qual if I didn’t join the SATT, their rationale being that ‘only SATT members can hold a SA(B)90’. When I reminded them that they could only remove it on the grounds of lack of competency or currency; and I challenged them to do either, they backed-off. I still exercise the qual today but it’s indicative of what people have to go through just like RS and Zinggy are experiencing now.
No wonder fewer and fewer ex-service personnel are coming into this organization.[/quote]
Not the case around here. I did a Basic Coaching Course with a bootie Corporal, who was in the process of being discharged and joining the ATC (already an SI).
To quote the SATT bloke: ‘You’ve got a B Qual? So you don’t have to come and do our course. Unless you really want to?’
I think they just wanted him to do the Basic Coaching Course as a quick brief on cadet shooting and a way to make sure he knew all the relevant bits direct from the SATT.[/quote]
His SATT obviously have the right approach to it. When I came in over 10 years ago, the state of thinking in ours was exceedingly short-sighted. As for the Basic Coaching, I did that as part of my B qual so - despite their requests - I declined to do it again. They had first threatened to remove my qual if I didn’t join them and then they decided they were going to downgrade it to a ACO range qualification. In the end, I still didn’t join them and they did neither. I’ve retained it to this day.
Re: ex-service personnel joining the Corps, I’d be interested to see the statistics (if there where any) over say, the last 25 years; and see how many ex-service have joined and whether the figures have gone up or down.
I know where my money would lay.
[quote=“Gunner” post=16165]His SATT obviously have the right approach to it. When I came in over 10 years ago, the state of thinking in ours was exceedingly short-sighted. As for the Basic Coaching, I did that as part of my B qual so - despite their requests - I declined to do it again. They had first threatened to remove my qual if I didn’t join them and then they decided they were going to downgrade it to a ACO range qualification. In the end, I still didn’t join them and they did neither. I’ve retained it to this day.
Re: ex-service personnel joining the Corps, I’d be interested to see the statistics (if there where any) over say, the last 25 years; and see how many ex-service have joined and whether the figures have gone up or down.
I know where my money would lay.[/quote]
Same change in attitude that’s brought about the CTT, maybe? I’m not sure how they could ‘remove’ your qual :? Surely that would be like going to work for a company who tell you they’ll take away your driving license if you don’t do their drivers course…
I think that the number of people who are ex-forces and also want to do youth work is probably quite small. When you think that people who are prepared to work with teenagers are a small part of the population to start with and that ex-forces folks aren’t numerous, you’re really asking for a minority of a minority. I’d imagine that the majority of service personnel, serving and ex, aren’t suited to or interested in working with cadets. Then those who are suited might not be interested and those who are interested might not be suited… and so on…
Well I’d like to say that I am impressed by the number of people who think that the DI situation is so ridiculous. Obviously some people don’t agree but they also were not able to bring anything sensible to the table either.
I don’t think this will go away anytime soon.
Sadly though, due to anonymity on this forum, we do not know whether anyone from ATF is prepared to comment on the situation. It would be nice to see what they say although the party line which they would spout still would not answer the actual question.
Having done the ACO DI course some time ago, I didn’t find it in the slightest bit challenging.
I spent the year after I qualified teaching myself arms drill, sword drill and mace drill because in my opinion, if I’m going to wander about with a pace stick, I should know that stuff to have any credibility.
For me, if you’ve got Q-DI, you shouldn’t need to go anywhere near ATF except on an SSIC. Indeed, I’d like to see ACO SNCOs receive the same Q after undertaking an equivalent course, perhaps spread over a number of years. Admittedly, you could bin off certain training objectives: ACO pers are pretty unlikely to organise a service funeral for instance.
I’m firmly in the “this is a bit of a silly situation” camp.
Would the ACO make an SA(B)90 qual’d ex forces member of staff re-do their qual (assuming they haven’t had too long a break in service)? No of course not. So why this situation?
But… Just because someone has a different point of view doesn’t mean it’s not valid (it may not be right, but still retains validity in an open discussion).
The problem with this analogy is that there is a document that stipulates what happens when an ex-forces member becomes a CFAV and had previous range or SAAI qualifications. Going by the discussions here I assume you don’t have one for drill instructors.
[quote=“blu3zirux” post=16180]ACO pers are pretty unlikely to organise a service funeral for instance.[/quote]You say that, but…
We had to sort something similar out last summer and while AP818 did a lot to help prepare us, we were lucky to have an officer who had some experience with service funerals and led us in sorting it out.
It will be required infrequently, but we should be able to call on RAF-qualified DIs to come in and assist when needed.
But… Just because someone has a different point of view doesn’t mean it’s not valid (it may not be right, but still retains validity in an open discussion).[/quote]
Perry, thanks for your agreement. I was referring to the comment from Plt Off Prune regarding “role models”. This thread had nothing to do with role models, it was about drill, drill instruction and drill training aids. I fail to see how the comments made could have any validity. It struck me that they were comments that were just meant to be agent provocateur. Not very clever, indeed rather childish.
But… Just because someone has a different point of view doesn’t mean it’s not valid (it may not be right, but still retains validity in an open discussion).[/quote]
Perry, thanks for your agreement. I was referring to the comment from Plt Off Prune regarding “role models”. This thread had nothing to do with role models, it was about drill, drill instruction and drill training aids. I fail to see how the comments made could have any validity. It struck me that they were comments that were just meant to be agent provocateur. Not very clever, indeed rather childish.[/quote]
Now, now, let’s be honest. Thread dived sharply away from that when you started posturing about how you would continue to use a pace stick regardless of what the rules are or what you are told. There were other comments about the validity of decision making but I don’t have time to find it right now. Either way young man, you were clearly swerving sharply early on in this thread otherwise you would have just stuck to the necessary elements. Would you have carried this same attitude if your forces employer would have given you a similar steer on something, or is it just because, “this is only pretend” that you don’t care as much? I hope not, because it appears you have some excellent skills and knowledge which would be of value to the young people in your charge. You don’t need a pace stick to demonstrate it though.
Let’s not take this off topic or make it personal.
Take it to PM or this thread is in danger of being locked.
Thanks pEp.
All,
I was wondering, is there an ACP, or any part of an ACP, anywhere that might cover what courses, including the AADIC, can and cannot be brought over from former regular service? Surely there must be something? I just feel that it might already have been mentioned if there was.
I know during my board, both board members were very keen that all my quals would be respected and carried over.
To make life easier for them, and for future boarding of ex-Regular CFAV’s, some direction AND justification of what courses can be accepted would help.
Honestly I don’t know, it’s not something I’ve ever seen if it exists.
Would the closest thing be the list of qualifications on SMS?
The SMS qualification list doesn’t suggest that much thought was put into it.
Last time a checked it still included “F7257” as a ‘qualification’. :unsure:
I wouldn’t infer any sort of intent from it.
There is no list. If there was, things change too much and it would be a burden to maintain and unsure relevancy across the different arenas. Everything is currently done on merit, which leads to unfortunate circumstances like this one. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t. Will the cadets miss out? Not really. Time to move on.
Well if the likes of RS and Co decide to chin this off and choose not to get involved in Drill (along the same lines as those whose SA(B)90’s weren’t recognised), then the Cadets will lose out. *
When you have to jump through unnecessary hoops (to acheive something you can do anyway), you have to ask yourself “wtf am I doing here and is this the best use of my spare time”? Other interests quickly become more attractive.
*Now whether the Cadets are bothered at this lost opportunity or not is another matter - I’ve certainly seen a marked apathy amongst the new younger members of our Sqn. “…Kids these days… chunter…”
Well if the likes of RS and Co decide to chin this off and choose not to get involved in Drill (along the same lines as those whose SA(B)90’s weren’t recognised), then the Cadets will lose out. *
When you have to jump through unnecessary hoops (to acheive something you can do anyway), you have to ask yourself “wtf am I doing here and is this the best use of my spare time”? Other interests quickly become more attractive.
*Now whether the Cadets are bothered at this lost opportunity or not is another matter - I’ve certainly seen a marked apathy amongst the new younger members of our Sqn. “…Kids these days… chunter…”[/quote]
What hoops? You don’t NEED to carry a pace stick to teach drill. In fact, I think what Racing Stick is saying about DIs in the ATC is that a lot of them don’t use them at all. In all likelihood he could probably do a better job than some DIs I know carrying an umbrella.