Fieldcraft policy update - Dec 2018


I’m only a mighty 5’7’’, and I use the the longback, the shortback ends somewhere around the bottom of my shoulder blades…

It’s the length of your back - hence the name - not your total height that matters. My Mrs, who’s 5’11’’ (and yes, way out of my league) would use a shortback because her body is quite short even though her legs are really long.

She has a 37’’ inside leg - and yes, for the perverts amongst us, she does look fantastic in 6 inch heels…


I have been ruminating on this particularly irritating change and have come upon a solution.

As all lawyers will tell you, rules are rules. But loopholes are loopholes. And here is our loophole:

“The only approved load carrying equipment in the RAFAC are the ACF-specified Cadet Tactical Vest and the Cadet Patrol Pack. These are not issued but may be sourced by individuals, Regions or wings as long as they confirm to the pattern listed in Reference A. To facilitate training where the appropriate LCE is not available (or not appropriate following a risk assessment) a correctly fitted belt kit… Is to be worn”

So, I’m currently drafting a rather specific risk assessment… Anyone got any criticisms of assault vests beyond:

  1. They get hot due to the mesh,
  2. They don’t distribute weight effectively to the hips/waist.
  3. The pouches being on the front mean that if you hit the deck you land on your mags.

I have also included controls on weight limits and the correct fitting of kit.

In other news, the lessons state you can get all your kit for a weekend in the NI pack. We just tried. It’s impossible.


My only experience of using the vest is when loaded up it caused the rear to back of the vest to ride up above the shirt and cause chaffage on the back of the neck. Probably my rediculous body shape


More updates, I’m hearing rumours that the policy regarding instructor status is incorrect as written and further guidance has been issued from ATF.

Suggest everyone contacts their Wing FTOs to clarify their status.


There was a typo, it’s nothing major.

Lots of other stuff is being raised in the background as well. We should see a few more changes in this policy over time.


It is difficult to use the magazine pouches for magazines. They are too flimsy and it takes a while.
Also, should one need to carry a bergen, the cadet training vest is not suitable to be worn with them.
Contrary to popular belief, the vest is not suitable for small cadets. It just seems to hang off them, no matter how much you do the straps up.


I added the Bergen/rucksack support issue, the vest provides no way of placing weight on the hips.

The major problem with vests is they aren’t designed for infantry fighting. They’re designed for drivers and maybe mechanised troops.


The only “advantage” to the vest is there is no setup involved, so you don’t have to worry about putting the right pouches on etc. Of course, “one size fits all” usually means “fits no one”.



I’d think that PLCE webbing is actually better for extremes of size, you can make a set pretty tiny.



I’ve never known 10 cadets take so flipping long to load.


Especially if you find that rare beast, the small size belt!
Most people don’t even know they come in different sizes.


Which part are you referring to? I was meaning that this is wrong:

I’m hearing that ECOs become FCIs, and previously authorised instructors MUST be trained up to that level (I.e. The old ECO training) + do an overnight.

New FCIs (not previously authorised) self study, do the course, and an overnight + assessed lesson.


Yeah, the typo that will change according to ATF is that the ECOs won’t become FCI(T) but FCI.

Old instructors coming up to standard is a given with a new policy release most in my area were delivering that content to their fieldcraft instructors anyway so little to update.


It could be worse…



So you had a Wing of ECOs? Only ECOs are automatically FCIs, everyone else has to qualify.


I had a Wing of people who had mostly the same content as the ECO course as part of our FCI course.

They weren’t formally ECOs as we would also base that on some experience as well.

I did say there would be ‘little to update’ as there will be some that require some tweaks.


Fair enough, that might be fine for your lot, but there’s going to be large numbers out there with a lot more work to do.

They shouldn’t have dropped this so suddenly. I did my ECO course when the rules changed and it sounded then like the wheels were finally in motion on using weapons. So why was there no greater warning about the need to upgrade to continue to instruct? I.e. “while currently an optional course, future policy will dictate that all instructors are upskilled to this level of training”?

Yet another mishandled policy release that is going to damage training in the short term. There are many benefits to it mid-long term, but for now…


What I don’t understand is why you need to do so much work…

The old policy said instructors were to have a knowledge of the lessons so that’s that bit ticked off, climatic injuries is now mandatory so that’s that ticked off, EASPs are an easy upgrade, as part of the assessment to be a fieldcraft instructor you should have seen an example of a battle lesson, the two man shelter is a basic lesson that all should be able to deliver. That leaves the only remaining elements some might not know about as the JSP 907 form and a presentation on the SST.

What is all of this work that needs to be done to upgrade people to that standard? What was your Wing letting you get away with to instruct fieldcraft?


“steps back in briefly as cannot keep mouth shut”
I thought it was said that you are not training Infantry?!:roll_eyes:
“Steps back out and awaits the storm”


They aren’t suitable for infantry work, and fieldcraft is infanteering.

That no more means that we are ‘training cadets to be infantry’ anymore that letting kids have a waterfight is training them to be firefighters.

Why do people feel the need to be so thunderously thick?