Off topic but this shouldn’t be the case.
Granted there is no official measure of a qualified assessor for staff. For a Cadet they can teach/assess Blue or Bronze as long as they hold the next qualification up.
Not in my Wing they can’t. The radio empire says they have to be seen to deliver assessments by the Radio Officer.
I agree, but, that would require the organisation to define training output standards properly in the first place.
At work so don’t have the ACTO to hand. From memory WRCO sign off is for adults, though briefing assessors on what is needed is sensible.
CCF already do this well (under army regs before people say its illegal lol) and its really not a huge deal here. The only requirement for our contingent is MOI/JCIC and having the appropriate lessons taught to you already.
1 Like
So kind of like the MOI course, then?
As you say, Fieldcraft is a wide ranging subject, and as far as I can tell, to attend a course that would equip you to teach the full syllabus out of the box as it were, would mean at least a 10 day long course, if not longer.
If you’re familiar with MOI, then there is really no need to spend a day, or weekend, learning how to pack webbing, or how the eye works at night. It would be a complete waste of everyone’s time.
Once you start looking at 8 hours plus exercises, or overnights, then sure, introduce formal learning outlining best practice, and highlighting the potential pitfalls you may come up against.
2 Likes
I wish I could triple or quad like your comment.
@DJRice can we have a feature where once or twice per set time period we can double like a post?
1 Like
And this is the problem.
Little empire builders across the various wings.
What we need are standard, standards given to us from HQAC.
No ifs, no buts, no variance.
Black and white.
1 Like
As I have said before for the Chapter 1 FC stuff if you have an Instructor Qual (MOI, SAAI, Underwater Basket Weaving etc…) and can read the PAM you can teach it
For Chapter 2 more specific skills maybe some experience required - so watch someone else do it and learn - OJT not specific courses to teach. SMS Signoff covers SST so authoriser should consider if Instructors are suitable - again can be via experience rather than formal quals
(you can run specific courses to teach if people want them - not as a requirement)
I think remembering the ACTO you need to be registered with an instructors pin in order to assess was simple enough to do and is part of the qualifications process. I believe this is linked to OFCOM & the fact we use military radio frequencies.
That’s a great idea provided it’s logical & based around the cadet. The first practical fieldcraft lessons do not need webbing, kit or overnight sleeping. As such you don’t need how to pack kit, organise webbing or hygiene in the field before the other topics. The syllabus needs to be integrated around the other training subjects, complimenting & developing that knowledge.
Otherwise you get silo working, topics that get updated at different rates, and little empires being built as SMEs at all levels jockey for position to prevent their speciality being neglected & left behind.
The problem is that the radio ACTO does say you need to be seen to assess (I think); it’s built around tight controls around who can teach/assess
Some consistency across subjects is needed. Perhaps we should appoint a Wg Cdr in overall charge of training to coordinate.
1 Like
Can someone split out the radio quals questions? I can’t as am only on mobile
I wholeheartedly agree!
Let’s not assume the worst. I envisage a very simple course of minimum duration to facilitate teaching the majority of fieldcraft, simpler than the current regime. That’s only part of the story, however; the current policy is not, in my opinion, fit for instructing fieldcraft with the rifle.
I agree and will go one further: I would like to see suitable Staff Cadets one day holding SA (SR) (07) Cadet and SAAI Cadet.
The current policy imposes no restrictions on age or status; suitably experienced cadets may be FCIs in the current policy. Their appointment to instruct must carefully consider their experience on each occasion; that is no different to CFAVs for anything in military skills activities.
I am confident it will become easier for us to teach basic fieldcraft, and to deliver air rifle training.
There is no intent or desire to require requalifications. That said, if something is broken, ‘but we only changed it last week’ doesn’t cut it. All the more reason to get it right now.
I understand and agree. The last item on the back of my FCI course report form is a development plan, where the student must, with support from the course officer, create a development plan. That is then sent to relevant people in the CoC and functional chain to support. This may include providing mentorship. ‘Qualifying’ people and sending them forth to multiply is not acceptable. I think you can expect some change in this respect.
This is in part about assurance. Assessing cannot assure that all the material we need to impart has been imparted. It is only a snapshot of key skills as a summative assessment. Formative assessment is equally important.
More importantly for me: an instructor course should not be teaching fieldcraft; if the student instructor is learning how the eye works during an instructional course then training has not been progressive and the candidate is not suitably experienced.
This did use to happen with Instructors cadets being qualified as WI(C) & qcWhT
However I believe that the RCO issue stems from regulations in the PAM that stipulate a minimum substantive rank.
1 Like
There is no theoretical blocker and we have support in principle where we need it. However, this clearly is a large project which must be very carefully navigated to ensure success. It might happen. It might not happen. It will be properly considered but I’ll say no more on this subject. The point is that we are not simply in the business of making things harder and will look to make things easier if better.
1 Like
I don’t see why there is any need for a “Cadet” course, surely just attending and passing the same course that adult staff attend would be the most appropriate, especially since most would be 19 and we’ll on the way to beating adult staff by the time they had been selected, attended and run their mentored ranges.
Misunderstanding. ‘Cadet’ at the end of these qualifications denotes Cadet Forces qualifications, differentiating from regular / reserve qualifications.
SA (SR) (07) Cadet is the full qualification title for the ‘short range RCO’ Qual.
SAAI Cadet
SA (SR) (07) Cadet
SA (M) (07) Cadet
SA (K) (17) Cadet
Etc
Ah fair enough, I’m SA(AR)12 and never knew that!!
1 Like
I completely agree. So why not just use an existing MOI course instead of introducing another course?
Looking at the bigger picture, A MOI course could be introduced as a mandatory requirement for all staff (we are, after all, a training organisation).
Instead of forcing staff to specialise/book on courses in a specific subject, they can teach everything at a basic level. Radio, FA, FC, Drill, whatever.
1 Like
I actually agree with this, but I also think the MOI course needs to be made a lot better. It seems far to focused on teaching basic things in a very ‘normal’ classroom environment. There’s a lot more teaching that we do that is no where near a classroom and projector. And sadly someone being assessed doing a 10 minuet lesson on how to make a cup of tea does not correlate to being able to teach a full weekend of Fieldcraft or First Aid.
5 Likes