CCRS competitions will be running after Nov 25 - do they still count?
No (abridged answer) - change is in criteria from Silver Shot + recognised competition to Silver Shot + FCC from 01 Nov 2025.
We can run all shoots on sqn for potential Gold award (& I’ve already been working up my cadets for this).
Status is still desirable - Nijmegen for example (although not arguing that is harder to obtain! ).
FCC availability will be another drain on wg resources & cadet availability. FCC is NOT a safety supervisor qualification, so first time firers (probalby the ones who need most coaching) will still need 1:1 supervision.
If they are worried about participation / performance / zero score, then change the scoring limits (as it used to be for Corps Markman).
It use to but I though an update to pam21/CTR nixed this?
Linked to supervision of weapons below 18 & something firearms act related?
(I have an idea that there’s a weird quirk that a 17 can supervise a sec 1 or sec 5 but not an air rifle as the later is controlled under violent crime reduction act & not firearms act exemptions)
Hi all. All Rgnl ShOs and OC MCT have been consulted, and they were asked to consult those in their AORs. We have received some feedback but some Regions have not provided any feedback. As a result of the feedback, we are about to make another consultation on one specific area of the proposal, so you can expect a little more on that.
NB: whether you agree with the outcome, I sincerely hope this demonstrates that we are not just consulting and ignoring but actually considering the feedback, digging into it some more, and using that, with factual data, to make policy decisions. At least, that is our intent. The feedback so far has been in both directions … we won’t be able to please all as a result, so someone will disagree with the outcome.
I get that. As far as I’m concerned, we should be encouraging our older and more senior cadets to go out and get leadership/instructional/coaching qualifications where ever they can. It’s good for their development, it’s good for younger cadets who can then benefit from that instruction, and I believe it will encourage retention into a CFAV.
But that said, the change to over 18s and trying to make them more like cadets and less like CFAV seems to be the opposite of this. For example, before the change, a Staff Cadet with CWI could go a run a climbing session as the AIC. They no longer can, they need CFAV supervision.
I think HQAC needs to be a bit clearer on what they want from senior cadets. DO you want cadets being cadets at a high level, or do you want to be encouraging them to become great instructors. I think the latter is better for everyone. And this change is a good thing WRT that.
As an aside, I think it was extremely silly for Mike to share the whole document with your details still visible. That was not okay. But sharing such a document, with personal details removed, really shouldn’t be seen as that much of a drama, surely? It’s not protectively marked at all? Although it may be an ‘Official’ document, it has no GSC markings to indicate use.
Anything that’s not for the public eye should be marked O-S. I generally assume anything not marked as such is fine for public discussion.
The information creator is responsible for assessing the expected threat profile to an information asset and the potential impact of an accidental (such as a data loss or incorrect disclosure) or a deliberate compromise, to determine the right classification, markings and controls to apply.
So, this document is unmarked. If the creator had assessed that a public compromise of this data could lead to some sort of threat, then it should have been marked as O-S, and/or had handling instructions added with that.
If we go by the logic of everything we create is not for public disclosure because it is Official, then we shouldn’t be sharing anything with cadets on cadet portal, as they haven’t done protecting information training and are free to share it with anyone. Everything would need to be marked ‘For Public Release’. Which it obviously isn’t.
The only issue here is the sharing of Dan’s personal details, that was silly. And the sharing of a draft document, which is arguably more of a problem compared to the ‘Official’ stance. But again, I’d expect a ‘Draft - Not for public release’ if it was that much of a potential problem.
As @Jimothy says, them’s the rules. Not marked = Official, and even Official must be protected, with the likes of the ‘need to know’ principle still applying.
If it’s unmarked, then it’s just a personal judgement, surely? There’s nothing in that IBN that is compromising. (Other than your phone number, which I agree should not have been shared!) You yourself have shared screenshots from ACP 18 in the past, which does actually have handling instructions applied. For the record, I see no problem with that, as what is shared isn’t compromising.
If a document creator doesn’t want that document shared, it should be marked Official-Sensitive, on every page, top and bottom, and in the file name. Simples. If I send an email containing data that needs to be looked after, I have OS in the subject, start and end of the email and within any attachments.
It’s useful to get the feedback but I think sometimes we rely too much on the “chain of command” to pass things down when you will have wider stake holders.
You would want a sample of stake holders from Sqn shooter level up to policy - select focus groups rather than a free for all.
Going to the policy change I think it’s well meaning but too binary in mind set. However there is a need to change as if cadets aren’t getting badges then it mutes the point of them as well as making them cost prohibitive.
So the strategic intent is to ensure gold shooting is more attainable & ideally have an element of instruction in it.
Options are
do nothing - meaning the opportunity for gold is diminished as competitions may fade
drop the competitions & tie it to the qual of the coaching course. Short term this may expand options but it may put a strain on the courses already struggling to be delivered. This just pushes the problem down the road as it may become just as difficult to gain gold.
have both options as an either/or I.e. to gain gold the cadet must:
Either: hold silver shot & compete at a suitable standard in a national/regional/authorised shooting competition
OR: hold silver shot & attend foundation coaching course.
This has the benefit of maximising the options, still allows competitions to be recognised but also encourages cadets onto the coaching course. This also encourages the competitions to continue & builds resilience to hold delivery.
This also may work as a better model for Gold PTS in general where there are a couple(although still high standard) ways of obtaining a Gold PTS badge - something that perhaps shooting could lead the way on.
From my non-shooty perspective, I think the mil-skills team does this pretty well. I see very regular use of the Teams channels when there are upcoming policy changes, looking for feedback at all levels. I don’t see that from any other area of the org.
They also have a pretty good feedback form thing on Sharepoint to give suggestsions too, which is nice!
).
