DRAFT IBN - Proposed change to Gold Shot criteria

The activity IC should be the RCO, ML etc, so absolutely should be an SME.

Okay, even so, they shouldn’t be marking their own homework. If it only went to their Sqn OC to approve, that may only be one set of ā€œSQEPā€ eyes on it.

1 Like

I reluctantly concur with this & the days of a single member of staff running a shoot with no oversight are long gone because of this.

I think what you could do though is shift the approval down a notch for Air Rifles with very specific way.

  1. the principle RCO is activity IC on SMS

  2. another RCO (maybe from a different Sqn) acts as the SPO, reviews the activity & leaves a comment supporting event & SSoT is in place

  3. OC Sqn reviews process ensures comment from SPO is there & approved on SMS

  4. Wg shooting officer audits on a dip sample.

It still keeps the checks & balances but allows it at a lower authority level which should make it quicker & easier to implement & reduce the waiting time faff.

What if the RCO or SPO is the Sqn OC? Then it’s approved by the Wg SME.

Then punnish the few, and don’t make it overly onerous for the many who keep to the constantly changing rules? But by all means have periodic review of a percentage of efforts, thus reducing the burden for everyone.

3 Likes

the question is what was the purpose of these rules?

was it to make the event safe(r) or to help cover someone at HQ rear end?

i suspect 99.9% of events that are not ā€œcompliantā€ with the rules, for whatever reason where no more at risk that if they did follow the rules, and wasn’t because they were ā€œluckā€ and ā€œgot away with itā€ but because the rules are overbearing in the first place and did little to ā€œimproveā€ the activity

This is loading up someone else instead of the existing SPO. You might also get the ā€œmutualā€ I’ll do yours, if you do mine situation.

Have the SPO check by all means - but for a repetitive / standing RSD if nothing is going to change. That keeps the higher level of assurance, but negates the ā€œyet another, almost the same, apart from dateā€ RSD. By all means add a simple limit, such as 6 shoots, or a ā€œxā€ month period (I’d happily accept say 3 months), something that alleviates the nause of the repeat admin faff for everyone.

1 Like

BUT WHY do we need more than 1 set of eyes? It an Air Rifle range, or a weekend in easy country or a YFA?? WHY don’t you trust Qualified CFAVs to do what they are trained, qualified, assessed and experienced in doing? This is the whole problem with the organisation.

3 Likes

That adds MORE admin than the current process.

2 Likes

Because people are fallible. Only one SQEP check means there’s a single point of failure, which isn’t good practice when it comes to safety, let alone the safety of children.

I’m all for making things easier, but there has to be a line.

Even people above say that they have to send RCOs their admin back so a second set of eye is required.

Is now time to call Topic?

Not wanting to stop the discussion but seems to have moved away from the proposed changes to the badges to the planning and approval process….

1 Like

But why do we have the same process in place for an indoor Air Rifle shoot as for an L98 Gallery? The risks aren’t comparable and we shouldn’t be pretending that they are.

2 Likes

Also, ive had people say ā€œits only air rifleā€

If we apply the same standards expected of the cadets and CFAVs at 5.5m, the expectations and behaviours will transpose to 300metres on a gallery or ETR.

1 Like

Booooo hisssss

We don’t have the same processes, there is no SAAF, the RCO could be less qualified and the range isn’t expected to the same standards. We might have the same template document in place and same approval process.

The risk though is significantly less is it now?

Also don’t need to submit extra forms to get approval to draw weapons, movements etc.

:100: this

if CFAV jumps through the all the hoops to get qualified, sometimes in a NGB ticket - why does the CoC then not trust them to use that ticket as trained?
is that a failing in the qualification not being stringent enough for the CoC?
is it a failing in general CFAV training to understand what is expected and thus cut corners?
or is it a power trip by the CoC who not only like to know what is going on, but like the ability to give permission to do X and the power to veto as they decide?

seconded.

the same with a parade night basic navigation exercise around the local common versus a DofE exped - both require BEL/LLA qualifications but one is 90minutes the other 50+ hours with catering and accommodation to consider and remote supervision

4 Likes

I refer you to the Haverfordwest Incident in the AT world…

Just cos you are qualified, doesn’t mean your plans won’t benefit from a second set of eyes to identify any scope creep.

1 Like

No, but if the activity is such that you can run it on your own once approved (& due the nature of AR ranges, nothing is going to change from the previous event, same indoor location, same staff, etc), then it won’t prove anything.

1 Like