The fieldcraft and shooting review for ASTRA hasn’t started yet.
Nothing should have changed on the delivery front for fieldcraft yet but the CCF RAF sections now coming under RC command may have people making changes to how they are doing TG work.
There has been a fieldcraft working group developing a PTS/Policy/Quals for some time but it has been put on hold for now so as the ASTRA Lead for FC/Shooting can review it and consider the changes for ASTRA to possibly avoid a change now and another change in 8-12 months.
There is still scope for an interim group of changes to bring us inline with the SST and patch some holes. But none of it will be massively controversial and is aimed at enabling training after the assessment of the training needs analysis that people filled in.
Jumping on the ‘fieldcraft in ASTRA’ discussion: whilst the shape of fieldcraft may be unknown, fieldcraft will continue; not only is there no plan or desire to ‘retire’ fieldcraft, it has been acknowledged at the top as being something we must continue to deliver.
Opinion: the shape of fieldcraft will not substantially change. How can it? Camouflage will continue to exist. However, I’d expect life to become simpler at the bottom, more inclusive at the top, and with some modern twists and integration with other subject areas (think of the potential of VR for rehearsals and demos, drones for recces and replays, etc).
Unfortunately there’s no must with volunteers. The air cadets unique selling point is the flying.
The sea cadets is the waterbourne activities.
The Army cadet has fieldcraft.
The majority of ATC volunteers don’t join to do the fieldcraft & after a few years being in cold wet muddy fields & not getting a decent night sleep people tend to get bored & move on to other activities. If we dilute our unique selling point then we lose volunteers & cadets.
If the next defence review stands down the RAF regiment & merged into a ranger unit, where does that leave RAF fieldcraft.
As stated by others, the ATC organisational knowledge of fieldcraft is woeful and the only real way to get it to any standard is to do joint training with the ACF & have RAFAC personnel attend ACF courses to kick start things.
RAFAC does have the CCF to boost the fieldcraft knowledge as they have the institutional training & knowledge from the Army side & deliver fieldcraft tri-service. However the ATC side would need to admit that they can’t deliver it on their own & ask for help from the other cadet forces.
This is unlikely to happen as whilst the ATC is very proud of their achievements they are not so humble when working with others.
Nobody can be the pinnacle organisation in everything and if you’re good at everything then it means you excel at nothing.
At this moment in time when we are struggling to deliver basic training & courses as well as re-engage volunteers & it’s a big effort to get even a half of pre-covid commitment.
Sometimes on projects it just has to be accepted that despite the value & benefit that an activity brings it is not sustainable & or viable In this current generation & it may need to be mothballed or discontinued to concern on higher priorities & easier to achieve activities.
I think the first sentence is rhetoric. Volunteers must obey the rules of the organisation, eg volunteers must hold a DBS ED. There are ‘musts’ with volunteers.
However, there is no mandate for any volunteer to participate in fieldcraft. Saying we, the RAFAC, must continue to offer fieldcraft is not the same as saying you, a volunteer, must do fieldcraft. It does mean that the leadership must inspire, develop and motivate sufficient volunteers to deliver fieldcraft training.
Whilst flying is something of a USP, it is not all we exist for. Indeed, flying is not even an aim of the ATC. It’s not even a 'U’SP as the other cadet forces also offer flying / gliding, albeit to a lesser extent. Likewise, fieldcraft and shooting are not 'U’SPs of the ACF and other cadet forces offer them, albeit to a lesser extent.
Whilst the RAFAC as a whole does not have the collective experience to facilitate the highest level of fieldcraft training for every cadet, that is somewhat irrelevant. What is more important is the offering of an experience and basic level of fieldcraft training to all cadets. We do not need to be experts in attacks for that.
I suggest that …
… should largely be relegated to the past in favour of more positive and productive experiences. Walking further in colder, wetter conditions is not ‘more difficult’ from a technical level of fieldcraft; it’s an outdated practice.
I assure you that fieldcraft is alive and well in many areas of the RAFAC and I, and others, will gladly help if it is a subject your patch is struggling with. Just get in touch.
It still remains one of our greatest assets/methods for multi skill testing and development.
FT, as well as itself, can include:
Leadership
Teamwork
Problem solving/task appreciation
Planning/organisation
Communication
Timekeeping
First Aid
Radio
Navigation
Personal Admin/discipline
Resilience
Focus/multitasking
Weapon skills
The extra level of “simulated environment” that FT provides is far more effective at consolidation than practicing each of those in isolation.
That - plus a consideration (regardless of what CAC may or may not want to achieve with some kind of RAF recruit conveyor) that a sizeable portion of cadets who join the forces go elsewhere - will maintain an incredibly strong argument for keeping it regardless.
Apologies- I didnt mean for it to come across as rhetoric- I was referring to the fact because the organisation says we must deliver fieldcraft doesn’t mean that we will be able to in terms of motivating the volunteers. You address this quite effectively in your 2nd paragraph about the need for leadership to inspire & motivate to encourage more volunteers to invoke themselves in fieldcraft. It is changing the language & psychology from “must” to “need”.
ACF & SCC(RM) volunteers have it as part of their volunteer initial induction & training. You could look at including it as part of a uniform staff training module but I don’t think the organisation is in a position to ask more than the fundamentals at this stage.
Generally agree in principle, however in volunteer world we mainly deal with perception rather than reality & the perception is that the air cadets/air training corps are primarily about the flying & aviation. However, one of the aims of the ATC is promote “practical interest in aviation” which means hands on stick flight time so yes it is an aim of the ATC.
The ACF has a requirement in its charter to promote an interest in the Army and its skills, The SCC has a requirement in its vision that it will promote an interest in skills of sailing (& a load of other activities). The ATC is unique in being the only cadet force that has Practical aviation stated in its core aims of its charter.
This was my point but my experience of ATC fieldcraft is that RAFAC as a whole does not have the experience or culture to deliver basic fieldcraft (field signals, Cam & concealment/why things are seen, patrol formations) yet alone anything more complex - it needs help & training from the other cadets forces to deliver this basic syllabus.
This! I 100% agree & why I feel fieldcraft can be one of the best tests in developing & testing our cadets. It’s also one of the biggest plus points to JL. I would love your quote to be incorporated as the vision statement of why we should offer fieldcraft & it is with this mindset the fieldcraft training syllabus should be developed.
The worse ATC fieldcraft experience I have had (from the feedback, my cadets as well) has been when the exercise has been done in a vague casevac & not incorporating the other cadet skills they have learnt.
The best ones have been when the fieldcraft exercise has been very simple (signals, camouflage, formations) but has incorporated elements of radio, map reading & (for the NCOs) briefings & decision making.
The enthusiasm is there but the effectiveness is on life support in some areas. I’ve always worked to the adage that we either do it right or not at all. Whilst I will encourage & support fieldcraft when we are struggling to deliver PTS or first aid, Fieldcraft will regrettably take a backseat.
I do think it’s great & fantastic that you have an enthusiasm for fieldcraft as without volunteers such as yourself we won’t be able to deliver any of the activities we are meant to.
I would suggest that if you really want to build up the fieldcraft knowledge then include the basic lessons of patrolling & movement, formations & signals and camouflage & concealment into the first class syllabus. They are basic enough that everyone can get involved, simple for instructors to learn & form the basis for the rest of fieldcraft. The other fieldcraft lessons (hygiene in the field, patrol harbours, sentries etc) can be done later on once the cadets are leading or about go on a deployed exercise.
Shooting took a hit in instructors when the no8 was taken out of first class training resulting in a reduce interest of instructors & consequently cadets. Hopefully the reverse would work.
Shooting has kinda been put back in via the blue badge syllabus but if you add fieldcraft it will start to promote that interest in both cadets & instructors, although it does not need a badge of any description (despite green frog/cadet directs opinions). It may take about 10years to bear fruit but it would give the organisation a steady base to grow fieldcraft.
We are considering (emphasis: not a foregone conclusion, nor a statement of policy) a PTS for fieldcraft. I think it is highly unlikely for there to be physical badges for it, if it happens.
Your suggestion of incorporating some fieldcraft into the classification system is interesting (and one I will feedback). Certainly the ACF’s level of integration is, I think, very good across all their subject areas when compared to our ‘pick n mix’. However, as with your concern over mandating fieldcraft for new CFAVs, I worry mandating fieldcraft for cadets may be a step too far. Worthy of consideration nonetheless.
Indeed it’s very difficult to mandate anything if we don’t have the capacity to deliver it on every unit, which almost negates anything that requires staff to have a specialist course. (There are plenty of units out there which are basically one man bands).
The situation we had when the no 8 being part of the first class syllabus was that you had cadets not able to pass first class due to lack of qualified instructors. Taking it out removed the blockage but reduced the interest. I imagine you would have a similar situation if you mandated fieldcraft as part of first class.
Many many moons ago when I was a CCF(RAF) recruit & before it went tri-service at my contingent we had the very basics included along side our part 1 (first class) training. Just enough that we could do a two hour field exercise across the school fields (& annoying the golfers trying to have a match)
We then had further advance lessons included along side our part 2 (leading) subject training and then field leadership side done along side our pre-NCO & Advanced (senior) training. It worked & didn’t need to be complex . There was consolidation with two optional field weekends & a nitex on the first Friday/Saturday in December.
Perhaps have fieldcraft as a replacement of the projects aspects that use to be part of the classification system.
All blue level stuff should be aimed at being delivered by Cadet NCO’s (with the exception of things like Air Rifle and I would personally let Staff Cadets hold the Air Rifle RCO ticket if it was upto me, it’s really not a hard course).
I can see the value in making completion of a small number Blue badges a requirement for 1st class, and a Fieldcraft badge would fit in well there. I suppose the PTS is meant to fill that role to an extent.
If that is too much of a stretch bin off IET, replace with Fieldcraft. Might need separate training on Trangias and rucksack packing for those doing DofE, I guess, but most units I know do pre exped training anyway.
make it a simple day course and let staff cadets be eligible to teach it on squadron.