There are elements to instruction which are truly universal and which should be given cross-credit for. For example: I shouldn’t need to tell a drill instructor who wants to be an FCI that a good instructor must know their subject; given the genuine intricacies of ceremonial drill, they will know that. Aside: we still see instructors teaching stuff they know far too little about to be authoritative or convincing.
However, instructional technique is not universal. How one teaches chemistry in a classroom, law at university, principles of flight online, power loss after takeoff in a fixed wing aircraft, the halt in quick time, the NSP for the L98A2, adjusting for wind on the L81A2 at 1000yd and field signals are all very different.
Sure, a gliding instructor (I was one so I don’t mean this disparagingly) could teach the latter with good subject knowledge, but perhaps not as effectively as someone trained specifically in the MOI of that subject.
Just as there is no one course to be a flying instructor for all types of flying; one must hold separate qualifications to teach the theory, single pilot flying, mult-crew cooperation and on an airliner. That doesn’t mean we’re going to have a different instructor qualification for EVERYTHING but one size does not fit all in instruction.
And this is why specialist teams for silver and above make good sense, but for the lower levels we should be trusting our instructors to learn the material and deliver a decent lesson - provided they have a good lesson plan and the materials they need.
I don’t believe it’s that simple in this case though - at least not as simple as someone picking up the book and delivering as has been mentioned a couple of times above.
Anyone can use cam cream, but not everyone can do it well and most typically won’t on their first go… Anyone could teach cam cream…
I’m unsure why or how we’ve gotten ourselves into a situation where natural progression of skills through attending ft prior to qualling is tripping us up in this thread. The true blockers the org has had in producing {and keeping) ft instructors (and good ones) is the constant morphing of requirements and removal of flexibility over the past 8 years.
If a SAAI doesn’t want to do L98, they don’t have to do it. If an AT instructor doesn’t want to go above LL they don’t have to. But as it is now, if an FCI only wants to instruct, they have to learn to FECO or PO which for many meant a new course, often at least 1 weekend.
Maybe this move was because of a lack of FECOs during the two-tier period, but this disengaged a lot of experience and allowed the inexperienced to jump in the deep end with little assurance of even having attended a bivvy lesson.
As for having still not gotten it right in terms of assurance, qual, and progression after x many iterations in less than a decade… How can HQAC not realise why CFAV aren’t happy? This is just one of many clusters we’ve endured.
Moreover @Giminion those looking at fieldcraft at HQ RAFAC are fellow CFAVs who are also unhappy with the state of fieldcraft as it is. The team under TG5 has ears and is using them, I promise.
That’s not a promise to ‘give’ everything but certainly to consult, hear and consider.
Just as long as those in this team never EVER forget that the most fundamental unit in the Corps is the Sqn. Also the most numerous.
All training should work first and foremost from the principle of the Sqn and delivering it there and from that level.
More that the level.of RTL is the same therefore responsibility, therefore the rank should be.
Not fussed if it went up or the others went down.
Personally, I’m in favour of eliminating as many Sqn Ldr posts as possible.
We are very heavy in the rank as an org. Especially in random SME positions.
And that’s part of the problem… as you could then argue the same for radio, PTT, leadership etc…. Blue level should require no staff qualification, that doesn’t mean pick the book up 5 minutes before teaching, it means trusting staff to self teach in their own time.
Bronze can have a course, or other demonstrable skill (in this case I know of ex raf regiment CFAV for example that would fall in this category).
Less so for these, but leadership needs some existing degree of knowledge at blue because it’s less railroaded as a topic in practical settings.
Point is, you can’t just read the book however far in advance and be competent at practical skills.
It was one example of a larger issue across AORs where words and actions don’t reflect that understanding or empathy. Something that certainly needs to cascade down if they’re serious is for wings to pay attention, listen, and not block complaints, or themselves roadblock the pathways to enable or ease the running of activities.
In the RAFAC, we’re happy for untrained, and unqualified squadron staff to teach the basics of flight, control surfaces, air nav etc. As soon as the cadet progresses, we then switch to using specialist instructors.
In fact, the same could be said for a lot of our subjects. Our first class training has map reading for example - an actual life skill, that could potentially be used for the rest of their lives.
Should FC training be different? Should we make the instructor sit a specific qualification, just to teach the very basics at Sqn Level (and I’m not talking about 8 hours plus exercises, or bivvying out).
I’m dredging up mentions I’ve made elsewhere of “pre-deployment” level training, which could be taught more easily by those without more specialist experience.
1-3 definitely fits into this, and potentially 4 although I’d prefer a more detailed resource than just the PAM pages for this one as it’s a bit too sparse in detail imo.
At the moment it’s very hot and miss anyway, just because you can be a Sqn Ldr in a Wing role authorising high RTL activities doesn’t mean you will be (as a Flt Lt who authored high RTL activities).
For me I would up the rank for FT to be in line with Shooting & AT. I would like to say I would mandate that people in those roles be made that rank as well so that they have equality with the WEXO and their Regional counterparts who also hold the same level of responsibility, after all the SME is going to be the one in Coroners Court as the authorised if it all goes wrong not the Wing Commander (However I foresee an objection as that would block SNCO’s from those Wing SME roles, which some would object to).
If you need to find extra Sqn Ldr vacancies they can easily be taken from the Wing SME’s who aren’t responsible for High RTL events. (After all why are Music & Radio ranked to Sqn Ldr when DofE is ranked as Flt Lt).
I could live with them being Sqn Ldr’s as long as all Wing Staff roles are Sqn Ldr, but when FT which had a fatality and a coroners inquest (which prompted a lot of the changes) is only a Flt Lt is just seems wrong to me.