Technically. We had one very keen but couldn’t complete all the courses due to lack of availability before ageing out.
Jeez.
Death traps.
Gas only here.
1 Like
All good and well. But wouldnt that mean we all have to go and do yet another instructors course?
1 Like
The gas converted trangias are pretty good too 
1 Like
One day, hardly a major burden and unlike lots of our mandatory training actually of benefit.
TBH I’d be in favour of training for all the topics we instruct on. Cadets would benefit after all
3 Likes
So long as we don’t create more subject ‘Instructor’ specific course to be able to teach
At the end of the day if you hold an Instructor qualification and the PAM is good then you should be able to teach it.
The faf to be able to teach/assess some subjects (radio per say) is mind boggling
5 Likes
Maybe for some.
This organisation only makes it harder to do things, never easier.
4 Likes
It doesn’t need a day course to teach the basic stuff. Lessons 1 - 10 can easily be taught by anyone who has read the PAM.
I’m against a mandatory course for fieldcraft basics, for several reasons, not least that I don’t trust the org not to move the goal posts in the future, and make everyone requalify on the new super-duper-with bells on it FCI course. We’ve already seen several iterations of the FCI course in my wing, none of which will be valid should a new course be introduced.
1 Like
Indeed this.
1 Like
This.
This is the issue.
Evertime the goal posts are moved, we requalify.
Might just not bother next time.
Skip this iteration and wait for the 2024 version.
1 Like
People spend half the time on this forum complaining about the quality of staff development and the other half complaining about going on courses.
2 Likes
I’ve always been of the opinion that if you complete an MOI and there are decent materials with a simple lesson plan/instructors note then for most adults this will be enough certainly for blue.
Depending on individual knowledge we should then be taking sensible decisions if a course is needed for bronze level…. Wing SME’s should take into account peoples day jobs and other qualifications. If a CFAV can understand and confidently deliver bronze without a course, why make them do it? Too much empire building.
Silver plus should be delivered by specialist teams. Anyone wanting to deliver silver should be encouraged onto regional teams.
I’ve sat through several of these pointless day courses for delivering subjects I’ve known more about than the trainer.
I think the organisations problem is there are some over enthusiastic volunteers that want to put on pointless courses, offering no development. Whereas the kind of support and training we’d like to see come from hqac isn’t forthcoming.
So yes, that leads to folks like me complaining about a lack of staff development, but not wanting to go on pointless courses.
I hope this helps clarify why that is.
3 Likes
Compliance is the answer, not empire building. Having to deliver under the military banner means we have to show formal training, assessment and progression of training.
This is part of the problem with the current system. Wings are making up all sorts of rubbish instead of it being one HQ designed and monitored course.
Whilst I agree, what this organisation lacks is the ability to Recognise Prior Learning against whatever outcomes are associated with a course.
NGBs do it in the AT world (albeit generally only to bypass training; you still have to demonstrate competence at an assessment) so I think as an organisation we do need an RPL process for most course routes, particularly for internal qualifications.
5 Likes
Out of the box but why isn’t there a form of checking someone’s knowledge and experience, a quick checklist, without going through the whole rigmarole 
1 Like
The reality is that the scope of Fieldcraft is rather large with lots of different skills & experience to teach all the lessons in cadet Fieldcraft & Tactics. Many instructors will not have this this so it would good to see a move in the FCI qualification which allows you to instruct what you’re able to, and enables to to grow your own scope as your experience grows?
Consider the Skill at Arms Instructors course where CFAVs are taught how to teach Skill At Arms, it enables CFAVs to teach any weapon system they are competent in once they have passed the course.
Fieldcraft instructors can be taught the skills needed to teach Fieldcraft, and can then they teach all the lessons they are competent in? This maybe a small set of lessons to start with, but can grow over time.
Both in support of this and as devil’s advocate what we used to call heartstart is an example of mandatory training “within 6 months”
Only delivered by trained instructors
What differentiates HS vs FT is HS was designed as a quick course and could be achieved within a week (/2 parade nights)
There is no such FT equivalent nor an obvious “universal benefit” teaching kids how to hide in the bushes as basic first aid
And too many others think courses are the only way to learn.