There is provision for belt wear with 2 magazine pouches and a water bottle carrier. Instead of purchasing expensive kit.
The way I read it all FCIs will need to undergo a 1 weekend standardisation training exercise and a 1 weekend assessment exercise.
But the document is so full of accronmns it is difficult to grasp the facts.
That or it’s early on a Sunday and I am being thick… happy to be called thick on this occasion as I don’t want anymore courses!
That isn’t what it says at all…
Read the policy, and you will see there is recognition of prior learning for existing instructors and ECOs.
Thick it is then!
FYI:
“This policy applies to all new FCIs. FCOs must review all existing FCIs based on demonstrated competence to the satisfaction of the relevant TSA, to determine whether they should remain an FCI or undergo retraining. FCOs who attended the old ‘ECO’ TTT at ATF and are still current will become FCI(T)s. CFAVs trained by ‘ECO’ Trainers under the old arrangements and are still current will become FCI(T)s.”
Is it not time to make this a ‘purple’ function if not to save time and maximise resources?
And? “We’ve always done it that way is one of the weakest arguments there is”
Yes and yes.
In the same way that VGS instructors need to be as fit as fast jet pilots?
MattB, to answer your points…
I didn’t say we have always done it that way, I said we have always done it and there is no reason to stop it. That is in comparison with trying to start doing something we have never done on a corps wide basis.
So your target shooting officers will be happy the their rifles will be taken into the woods, get dropped, covered in mud, soaked in the rain and, according to Baldrick, take twice as long to clean? This will reduce the time they can be used for target shooting, a core activity!
VGS pilots have to take the same medical as fast jet pilots. Again this is not a sensible argument. VGS pilots are not asking to fly fast jets. There is a massive difference between flying a glider and a Typhoon. What you are proposing is providing an Armed aspect to basic Infantry training, which is what FT is. Therefore you should be as fit as an Infantry Soldier to provide Armed FT. Another reason for this fitness will be supervision levels. There will be a requirement for this and it will most probably be 1:5 close supervision. This means not driving round in a Land Rover, but being with them as they run around the woods. Not many FT staff I know would be able to do this.
This is an emotive issue and it will take a great deal to change my opinion. This will add costs to an activity that is currently provided cheaply as cadets (or squadrons) will have to buy more kit, more training course will have to be funded on top of paying for the rounds and greater upkeep of the rifles. This would be fine if we had money sloshing about, but we don’t. Cuts are being made everywhere and I do not see the justification on providing such an expensive change to an area that is already providing fun and leadership experience to the cadets.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
But regardless of your opinion progress is being made - so it makes no odds whether a few people dig their heels in.
Which amounts to essentially the same thing…
Yes.
No it won’t. It’s hardly as though the L98s are all being used day-in, day-out (or at least the weekend equivalent) as it is.
Fieldcraft is a core activity!
You can say “you should be as fit as an infantry soldier” as many times as you like, but you’ve yet to explain why this would be the case. I can’t see any particular reason why the addition of a rifle suddenly means that we need to smash out a 10.30 mile and a half.
I do not see it as progress at all. It will just add another massive bureaucratic and expensive layer to a currently successful activity. Not all cadets will get a chance to take part in these activities. Only a small number of units with the correctly qualified staff will be able to run these events.
There is intransigence on both sides. I cannot see the point of the expense and extra training so a few people can have guns to making their games more realistic. To others this is the ultimate aim of FT. Hopefully sense will prevail and both opinions will be taken into account.
If it does change and I had interested Cadets, I would support their attendance, but my opinion is around cost, training, staff fitness levels and the motivation of said staff!
Just a note on this, TG5 was often the blame point for things that weren’t her fault.
The changes in fieldcraft were actually pushed for by the RCs and delayed by ATF. TG 5 had no say in it.
Shooting is being held up by TG SO1 primarily, by the end TG5 was a desk officer as intended and it is the SO1 that puts the handbrake in ‘handbrake house’.
You can see it how you want.
But it is progress - if you think Fieldcraft is currently run successfully I think you may need to revisit it.
Staff fitness levels? This isn’t the special forces - it’s basic Fieldcraft - the addition of a rifle doesn’t change anything.
That’s not a proper belt order though so would be half arsed teaching if people are sticking to the PAM.
It does add just under 5kg of dead weight and alter the way lessons are delivered. Especially things like obstacle crossing and movement.
Small changes that just need a bit of basic tuition to overcome.
Agreed - but not higher fitness standards as Leather worker is suggesting.
When did I mention special forces? I stated that if staff are training cadets to be Infantry Soldiers, they need to have the fitness levels of Infantry Soldiers. Would such a requirement be a problem? Wouldn’t all the staff want to show their commitment and professionalism by attaining the basic level of fitness required by an Infantry Soldier?
Addition of a rifle changes everything. It becomes serious Infantry training, not just hide and seek in fancy dress.
Have you ever met a member of the ACF? They’ve been doing armed fieldcraft for years and pretty much single-handedly keeping Greggs afloat.
So they should raise their standards too then!!
Everyone in all three cadet forces should be able to pass an RAFFT/PFT/RNFT.
However, if we actually made it a requirement then we would end up with about 500 staff left.
We’re not training infantry soldiers though.
The policy doesn’t allow chapter 2 tactics apart from specific courses and it’s the tactics that take real knowledge and fitness.
It allows Cadets a little more realism when undertaking basic fieldcraft.