I agree totally, where it becomes grey is where staff try to mix and match or where things like Obstacle Courses get used and no one wants to take responsibility for who does or doesn’t authorise them. (Not helped by us not having direct access to the relevant Qualification and having to beg the ACF for spaces.)
2 Likes
Nah, some AT stuff is higher risk IMO. Paddling can go from 0 to 100 real quick. I’ve always considered AT as the highest risk ‘area’ from my point of view.
Also driving kids in a minibus is pretty dangerous all things considered.
But yes, the FcO role certainly has more ‘responsibility’ than then WShO in many ways.
This always seems like a mess! IMO this is closer to AT than it is FC, but who knows at this point 
We probably cause more serious injuries MTB than anything else. Mountain Walking can go very wrong and you can be a long way from help, Paddling as you say can go wrong very quickly too.
FT is generally in quite a contained area, it can however be pretty remote.
However it’s a Military Qualification, in Uniform on DTE, surely closer to FT than AT? (Would it not be covered by the SST).
1 Like
You make good points, that yes, it probably is closer to FT actually. As for the SST; all activities are covered by that, are they not? AT, FC or otherwise…
as can (trad) climbing…
2 Likes
No doubt!
Nope, strictly speaking, only shooting and fieldcraft. It is often applied to other areas to help risk assess, manage, give sensible commonality, etc.
2 Likes
Just wanted to give one example. And the one I’m most afraid of from an instructor POV!
1 Like
Interesting, the more you know! I’ve heard it referenced quite a bit outside of shooting/FC. It makes sense I guess as a mental checklist but guessing then that it stems from CTR rather than any kind of central RAFAC policy?
1 Like
Correct, and in turn from Pam 21 / AC 71855. However, they now refer to it as the Safe System of Work. The same principle remains.
1 Like
It’s in the Risk Assessor refresher training
Nothing to do with it being produced by the team which develops military skills 
1 Like
TBH so long as I can take the Sqn for a weekend or two of aggressive camping and they come back with stories of map reading in horizontal rain and their bivvies surviving a hurricane (drizzle and light wnds) - Cadets are happy, I am happy.
Would love to do more in depth Mil Skills but tbh prob too difficult as a Sqn - Let Wg do that…but I will help if I can
I’m confused about where FT is lacking regards to the SST. It was mentioned further up as well I think.
Safe Persons: how good is our assurance of FCIs and the training they’ve received?
Safe Equipment: potential failures around dress and LCE.
Safe Place: fewer concerns but could grow if use and scope of EUFs were to grow (hypothetical).
Safe Practice: how good is our measure of progressive training, practical understanding, etc?
1 Like
in reaction to these
Chief_Tech kinda has it right
ACTO 073 Annex L states (note my bold)
Any member of RAFAC, Staff or Cadet qualified to at least Radio Operator (Bronze badge) can assess a cadet for the Basic Radio Operator (Blue) award if accredited by a WRCO, if that authority has been delegated to them by the RRCO. An instructor/assessor must:
a. Be competent to Radio Operator (Bronze) level, in the opinion of the WRCO.
b. Assess a course at least once per year to maintain their accreditation.
c. Be observed teaching and assessing by the WRCO or nominee at least once every 3 years.
(1) If an unaccredited assessor passes a cadet, the award of a certificate and badge will not be authorised, and the cadet’s achievement will not be recorded on SMS until the cadet has been correctly assessed by an accredited assessor
I suspect the confusion lies in that paragraphs 1&2 prior to the above quote indicates that teaching can be done by anyone (see below) - but the assessment needs to be done by someone with WRCO approval (see above)
A cadet or staff member competent to Radio Operator (Bronze badge) or above can supervise the operating of a Basic Radio Operator cadet (Blue badge).
Any member of RAFAC, Staff or Instructor Cadet, can teach 1st Class Basic Radio Communications if following the standardised training material.
I knew they needed accreditation, but I didn’t know that all assessors needed to be seen to assess every 3 years. Has fat always been the regulation or is it an amendment? (If the former I owe my Radio Officer apology for all the bitching I’ve done!)
It’s just a model. It can apply to anything.
2 Likes
as far as I can tell it has always been there - looking at the ACTO Annex L was last edited Aug 2019 but it simply says “corrections” rather than change…
it is certainly something I never considered as i was running Sqn level and supporting Wing level courses with ease - all this has stopped since C19 and now despite 15+ years as a “radio bod” and someone known in the Wing as such, my WRCO is still applying the strict requirements
1 Like
I’d disagree with this. Our own organisational risk assessment procedure calls up the safe system without specifying it applies just to FC & shooting, implying it should be applied as a model to all of our activities.
JSP419 also requires that AT is conducted within s SST. Arguably this doesn’t apply to us any more but it’s still captured under the organisational RA procedure.
The currency part has been there for a at least a few years.
I’ve always thought the ACTO is written to allow a degree of flexibility / discretion by the RRCO/WRCO in who they approve as assessors, but from this and other threads it looks like some WRCOs aren’t applying it in the most constructive way. The ACTO doesn’t state in detail what someone needs to do to become an assessor and maybe that is the problem.
I can’t see why someone with your experience can’t just have a quick chat with the WRCO to go over currency. On my patch the WRCO has been quite active encouraging people with radio experience back into the fold. Yes that usually means coming on a Wing run course but that is where the extra staff are needed.