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?
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.
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
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.
.
The only mention of SST in ACP 5 is in the glossary of terms, only for it to then not be used.
SST features in the RA training package as it provides a useful framework to consider hazards and control measures, and because the package was produced by the HQ RAFAC team which, ordinarily, develops training for military skills: the Training Development Team.
It remains that, strictly speaking, the SST only applies (in so far as it must apply to satisfy regulations) to shooting and fieldcraft.
I advocate its use across the board but I’m biased.
Incorrect.
Procedure 34, Risk Assessment, Para 19 on.
I’ll also quote from JSP419:
you’d think right?
I tried this with my WRCO who was quite insistent I have bene “struck off the list” and not permitted until I am seen teaching again…has discouraged me from helping them out at a Wing course now as it ties my hands on a Sqn level until they can visit at a mutually agreed date when we have students to teach…
Our Wg team is always looking for new members 
You are spot on about ACP 5 Procedure 34. I was wrong - sorry. I won’t be trusting Word Mobile search in the future!
The procedure doesn’t give the true SST, however; it is a clearly bastardised version with a bastardised interpretation of ‘Safe Person’, likely with good intention but without good consideration if the consequences. For example: it is not enough for an instructor to be qualified to be deemed a Safe Person: they must be competent, ie Qualified or Authorised, suitably experienced and current. Procedure 34 leaves it only at “passed the relevant courses or has the appropriate experience”. To apply the ‘SST’ as per Procedure 34 would breach the ‘true’ SST required for shooting and fieldcraft.
Assuming you are knowledgeable about AT, do any of our (RAFAC) regulations require compliance with JSP 419?
Aside: JSP 419’s reference to JSP 375 is out of date; it now refers more generically to safe systems of work and is not split into parts (so the reference no longer exists at all).
He’s only a RATTO, and we all know how useless Region Staff are 
The talk of FT merging with AT isn’t something that has ever happened locally they have always been separate, other than some Day Nav Exs done on DTE as you need(ed) no qual to do this unlike AT in civvies.
I’m not saying for a second that all of these references are correct or up to date; I don’t write them unfortunately and clearly JSP419 hasn’t been updated to account for the revised JSP375. That is the quote from the current version from Defence Gateway. I’m sure you know as well as I do I could grab a handful of policy documents and loads of them would have out of date or incorrect references as things move on.
However the intent is clear, despite the out of date/clumsy wording in our RA procedure - the SST should be considered as the model it is and applied to all our activities when risk assessing.
Currently we aren’t required to comply with JSP419 (indeed we’ve been actively written out of it) however the intent remains and many will still refer to the SST applying to all RTL activities. Because it’s just a model - not exclusive to FC or shooting. Saying so is poor as it leads people in other areas not exposed to FC / shooting to believe they don’t need to consider it - when actually it can be a very useful model.
DDHs and TSAs etc will default to applying it to everything, because it’s what they know.
I agree, which is why I have stated:
Yes, but you also said this - which is the misleading bit I am challenging. CTR is just slightly more specific about how the model is applied in the LFMT and training simulation arenas.
Anywho, back to fieldcraft?
… and, strictly speaking, I stand by it.
On the original topic, what blockers do people tend to face in fieldcraft?
Also, who did / didn’t respond to the TNA survey that went out? Probably more interested in hearing from those who didn’t unless there’s something new to say or something specific to discuss 🤷
I’d say:
Transport & drivers willing do do weekends
Sufficient qualified staff to run a day Ex for the unit: we have 1 FCI so to go beyond 10 Cadets means asking other units to help
Lack of interest from other staff to help in supporting roles
But it’s a more general problem for anything off squadron in all fairness
Utterly garbage post holders at wing.
Lack of support from wing toward fieldcraft.
Lack of FCI courses.
Lack of meaningful syllabus from HQAC. We are just floundering in our own designs.
Admin burden to run even a simple FT exercise.
Tendency of CoC to stick its oar in and create extra caveats and admin, just to be seen to be doing something.
Lack of regional drive for FT.
Frankly other than JL. Lack of top down offering.