[quote=“tango_lima” post=22996]When I joined the ATC as a wide-eyed thirteen year old all I did every night was lessons.
It was an incentive to turn up, because we knew that the sooner we got through all the lessons, the sooner we could do all the stuff we had joined for. Then once we were used to turning up every night, we kept turning up.[/quote]
Ditto.
The vast majority of my parade nights as a cadet and early cadet life were invariably drill first half (unless it was raining, icy, snowy) and classification work second half, interspersed with range details (we all went once every 2 months) and other things throughout the year. I don’t ever remember thinking it was boring or like school.
Rightly or wrongly, we’ve been doing it as we go along with every couple of lessons doing some questions, which hasn’t been too painful. The staff give the cadets handouts with emphasis on the bits they need to know. This focusses the instructor and allows the cadets to at least understand things. What does concern me is how little they need to know about the ATC and RAF in terms of history, organisation and how the two are linked. I’ve done cadet of the year interviews for Wing and the general level of knowledge about the Corps, RAF etc is pitiful, which I feel stems from the way this is done. We do much more than the book or powerpoints suggest we should.
What I am waiting for is this style of question for the other classifications, as currently (it’ll probably change again :unsure: ) the 1st Class book is effectively proper exam questions, whereas the rest of the classification is electronic pin sticking and with only a requirement to get one out two correct. You needed minimum 52% to get a pass for the main subjects in the not so old days, now it’s only 50% and you can do it open book, which is odd given we don’t have books and most of the powerpoints on ultilearn aren’t up to much.
The classification system was the cornerstone of our training and despite problems with exam papers, worked well for years. But then partial passes were introduced and over the last 9/10 years been has messed about with several times, with massive detrimental effects IMO. Trying to imply completing the whole classification system a GCSE C-A* equivalence, which is what I undertsand Level 2 to mean, is a nonsense IMO. It may help a few cadets who struggle with GCSEs, but for the majority it will get lost on a CV / application form.
Agreed, but as someone who uses radios all the time at work (VHF & HF - used to be Morse proficient too!), the use of hand-sets at an event only requires simple protocols. You don’t need to know theory of frequencies, propagation, etc, to learn such protocols. However, some “specialist” has obviously decreed that full theory is needed…[/quote]
The same also applies to Map Reading - the first class syllabus goes in to far too much detail about map reading and nothing at all about navigation.
The two subjects should be split and combined, so that a first class cadet can do basic map reading and basic land nav, and a leading cadet can do intermediate map reading and intermediate land nav.
Agreed, but as someone who uses radios all the time at work (VHF & HF - used to be Morse proficient too!), the use of hand-sets at an event only requires simple protocols. You don’t need to know theory of frequencies, propagation, etc, to learn such protocols. However, some “specialist” has obviously decreed that full theory is needed…[/quote] The same also applies to Map Reading - the first class syllabus goes in to far too much detail about map reading and nothing at all about navigation.
The two subjects should be split and combined, so that a first class cadet can do basic map reading and basic land nav, and a leading cadet can do intermediate map reading and intermediate land nav.[/quote]
^^THIS!!! :worthy: :worthy:
on both counts there is too much detail.
as mentioned i only cover what i did before which to me was a “minimum” understand of how to use a handheld and why we do things the way we do…in some cases that creeps into Merit level.
the details really are a PITA and I can’t see the advantage.
in my mind a first class cadet is the equivalent to post RTS. they know the basics to survive most situations without given responsibility or command.
the detail in first class goes way to far too soon
IET has always had a need to understand route cards, yet the map reading has never really involved navigation and understanding maps and that’s where the problem lies and always has.
As part of IET and as extra sessions I’ve always taught compass and route planning, which I will continue to do.
There has always been aspects of the basic cadet training that don’t quite fit and in order for the cadets to understand it, you have to go into more depth than suggested in the books.
The lack of / disjointed nature of the progression between 1st Class and Leading, makes me wonder if Leading isn’t going to undergo a major revamp. The current 1st Class cadet training has large chunks of what have been for years part of the Leading cadet training.
Change is fine up to a point, but I do wish they’d have proper change management, with things phased and training etc put in place beforehand, rather than ‘here you go, get on with it’.
What is everyone’s view on the importance of properly completing these books and good attendance to pass First Class training?
I, like others in this thread, feel that a well run training schedule and good attendance used to be the cornerstone of turning out cadets that actually understand the subjects involved in First Class and demonstrated that they wanted to be cadets that learned about the RAF and other aviation subjects, t
Rather than just using squadron nights as a sort of youth club.
Should I be bothered that I am under pressure to pass some cadets as First Class when they haven’t turned up to more than half the lessons or completed their books? Should I just get one of the senior cadets to “fill it in with them”?
We give them to cadets to fill in as we go along and spend a couple of nights going through bits we’ve already covered when the books arrive.
This is only 1st Class cadet training FFS.
Whoever came up with this book has either never been staff on a sqn OR an educational professional so no idea of the constraints we are under OR were squadron staff so long ago (more than 10 years of being on Wing and Region) as to make their experience and advice on syllabus training irrelevant.
I used a multi choice exam paper with 10-15 questions per section made by an old mate in the early 80s for years and continued to do so, until I’d figured out how best to use this book. Much of the old test I used is still relevant now, all I’ve done over the years is changed some ranks etc etc to fit with the modern system. But it says something that the bulk of things around navigation, airmanship, ATC, RAF haven’t changed as much as people might like to think.
What is odd is that for higher classifications we have an exam system that has no rigour, ie open book, do it at home, yet the basic training requires so much effort and a larger proportion won’t see it through, but they get a nice book printed at considerable expense and the higher classifications get nothing official, other than a few v v poor ppts and an exam system which has more flaws (sic) than The Shard. One cadet passed the Ldg Airmanship and had never had a lesson or looked at the material. All they did was answer at least one question correctly for each LO, he got 2 correct on two LOs.
I actually quite like the idea of the books, as a sort of ongoing assessment but I feel that they’ve been quite poorly executed - far too much focus on detail that is largely irrelevant, questions/answers that are outright wrong, missing of stuff that’s really important and too many bits that are unanswerable without some other resource.
Airmanship is probably the worst - half of it is about runways, with only the most basic level of understanding of flight controls! And then there’s the “fill in the details of the airfield” bit which is impossible without looking at the book.
Throughout my time in the ATC Ive taught First Class.When I first saw the books when they came out my heart sank.They are way over complicated and time consuming for your average cadet.For many years in the old days I used to set the multi choice exam for all the first class candidates and the cadets loved it.They saw it as an achievement when they passed it and I never went along with this 55% pass mark rubbish that HQAC seem to think is enough.I used the old mark as the pass point (75%) which made the cadets even more pleased when they managed to pass it.Teaching the syllabus was fun then now its yet another admin burden.