Hi,
I saw and heard at around September last year there was a full FTI Qual course for cadets in LaSER, if this was the case then is this a potential for other cadets to partake as the only other way I knew it being achievable was via the JL route which is paused.
Any further guidance/ info would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ryan
Paging @dazizian
TO my knowledge there are plans to run the same within SW region this year.
So cadets are able to hold the qualification?
Yes but there are some limitations. The details are in ACP 16 Volume 1.
Yep! There is (at least there was planned to be) a course in PCW coming up, and a course was run at region last year for more experienced cadets.
Yeah there’s been FTI(R) to deliver blue run throughout SW Region so far but its the full FTI qualification is what I am asking on
Ah my apologies, misread the question .
All good
What’s the value of training cadets as full FTI? Under the published policy, they couldn’t be sole supervisors for use of weapons (i.e. all fieldcraft above Blue) and couldn’t retain their FTI qual because they can never exercise their ECO role. The priority is training CFAVs, who can fully exercise and retain their FTI qual.
Agreed, but if there’s space on a course, no reason not to fill it out with keen, capable cadets. But on an in-fill basis only?
Potentially. I’d suggest running a smaller course, and giving CFAVs more practice time, would be more beneficial than training cadets to do something that they’ll never use. There is also an increase in admin complexity for running a course with cadets vs a CFAV only course.
Yeah, fair, can’t really disagree with those points!
Sorry but realistically you’re unlikely to have just one instructor delivering a Bronze FT course, so a cadet could do full FTI and deliver lessons from the syllabus, alongside the staff. Some topics like camo and concealment and movement in the field and range cards which doesn’t directly require the use of a weapon would be reasonable for a cadet with full FTI to deliver but they can only do so with a full FTI Qual due to FTI(R) not having the scope to do this.
The point they’re making is that it’s better to have staff places on these courses, because staff can use their qual more widely, and making a course suitable for cadets is much harder
It certainly does help to have additional instructors to share delivery and admin tasks during a course, but a cadet instructor, who always has to be supervised and can’t be an ECO, isn’t an FTI.
It would however make sense if FTI(R)s could deliver Bronze under supervision. That would help with their development and share the training burden, as you suggested. Or completely separate the instructor and ECO quals, which would make sense for many staff too, who want to instruct but not necessarily organise and run.
I find this new system of FTI(R) and FTI really baffling.
I’ve read the updated version of ACP 16 Vol 2 and I am surprised by the amount of errors and inconsistencies.
Do these policy documents undergo any kind of QC/QA?
I have been involved with ATC Fieldcraft since 2016, so I’d like to think I have reasonable experience and perspective on how this subject has evolved over the last decade.
It really doesn’t make sense to me that a holder of the FTI qualification also requires the SA(M)(07) qualification, unless they intend on running blank firing exercises.
Can someone confirm this is actually written in policy? I don’t have a copy of ACP 16 vol 1
Not sure what you mean?
FTI doesn’t require M Qual.
M Qual is only needed to operate as ECO on a blank firing battle ex.
I’d be in favour of either having FTI(C) for cadet, that doesn’t include the dry ECO portion, or splitting FTI to separate instructors from the admin and supervision portion.
Thank you; as a holder of SA(M)(07) I am familiar with what the qualification permits - my comments were regarding:
But now that you are referring to ‘dry ECO’, I see where the confusion has arisen. In the ACF/CCF(A) world, an ECO is a holder of SA(M)(07) - as defined by Cadet Training Ranges.
If I was running an activity with no blank or pyro, I would just be the Activity Owner*.
I like your suggestions about FTI(C).
*or RAFAC equivalent
Yeah we have a bit of history with using the term ECO for the overall (on-the-ground) exercise head bod before we were using weapons outside of JL and a select few other events.
We do manage to confuse the terminology 
Much of the FTI course is about the ECO role of planning, documenting and then being responsible for an exercise. Since our changes in policy for over-18 cadets, they can no longer take that responsibility. That even includes a training day without weapons e.g. Blue fieldcraft on DTE.