I believe the PAM & SASC use to dictate the minimum rank for senior planning officer hence the scaling at Sqn Ldr Level.
I think setting the minimum rank of fieldcraft officer at Flt Lt is correct at this time. as fieldcraft develops & becomes more integrated than it could do with a review.
One option could be to that the wing fieldcraft officer acts as one of the shooting officers deputies.
It puts the high risk into the same sub-team who’s members compliment each other from a safety perspective & decouples it from the AT side.
Our local ACF has two deputy commandants, one whose portfolio is all the civilian managed qualifications (first aid, AT etc) & one who manages all the military skills & activities (shooting, field craft, blank firing, signals etc)
A similar structure could work. What does need separating is the cross over with AT as this is where the most of the incidents with fieldcraft have occurred. I would certain suggest that the wing fieldcraft officer could not double hat as the wing AT or deputy AT officer. There would be too much mixing of mindsets & increasing the likelyhood of things going wrong.
However, I disagree with FcO not warranting ‘x’ rank due to its current nature; I think the current risk is greater than in shooting, even w/o OME, and giving appropriate credence is important to develop the subject.
That’s good to hear - sorry am little bit rusty on the regs.
I agree with this, in my view fieldcraft is the most dangerous activity we do in cadets because there are a lot of variables that cannot be controlled in the same way shooting does and when things go wrong they go very wrong very quickly unless the staff are quite experienced & switched on. When shooting goes wrong it goes wrong big time but then everyone stops.
I think once the safety system is embedded & established it will become quite clear of the correct scaling of the rank needed.
I agree totally, where it becomes grey is where staff try to mix and match or where things like Obstacle Courses get used and no one wants to take responsibility for who does or doesn’t authorise them. (Not helped by us not having direct access to the relevant Qualification and having to beg the ACF for spaces.)
Nah, some AT stuff is higher risk IMO. Paddling can go from 0 to 100 real quick. I’ve always considered AT as the highest risk ‘area’ from my point of view.
Also driving kids in a minibus is pretty dangerous all things considered.
But yes, the FcO role certainly has more ‘responsibility’ than then WShO in many ways.
This always seems like a mess! IMO this is closer to AT than it is FC, but who knows at this point
We probably cause more serious injuries MTB than anything else. Mountain Walking can go very wrong and you can be a long way from help, Paddling as you say can go wrong very quickly too.
FT is generally in quite a contained area, it can however be pretty remote.
However it’s a Military Qualification, in Uniform on DTE, surely closer to FT than AT? (Would it not be covered by the SST).
You make good points, that yes, it probably is closer to FT actually. As for the SST; all activities are covered by that, are they not? AT, FC or otherwise…
Interesting, the more you know! I’ve heard it referenced quite a bit outside of shooting/FC. It makes sense I guess as a mental checklist but guessing then that it stems from CTR rather than any kind of central RAFAC policy?
TBH so long as I can take the Sqn for a weekend or two of aggressive camping and they come back with stories of map reading in horizontal rain and their bivvies surviving a hurricane (drizzle and light wnds) - Cadets are happy, I am happy.
Would love to do more in depth Mil Skills but tbh prob too difficult as a Sqn - Let Wg do that…but I will help if I can
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!)
