Sooo, CTR has been updated in April 25 and still refers to Queen’s Regulations.
How can we hold someone accountable under a regulation that does not exist - King’s Regulations were published over a year ago. By the book we should be saying Queen’s, as that’s what’s written in CTR, however it feels stupid and incorrect now.
I mentioned this last night to new cadets who were having to do a declaration for the first time!
Also, WHERE is it stated in Cadet Regulations?
Can anyone be held accountable under KR’s anyway?
If you are a member of HM forces, Yes.
If you are a member of Cadet forces. No.
The King is yet to sign the regs for the Army which is why it hasn’t been updated.
Was questioned and confirmed at the weekend.
Also just checked and PAM 21 hasn’t been updated either.
Surely all someone has done is taken the PAM21 declaration (‘King’s regulations make it an offence…’) and shoehorned in ‘and cadet’ without thinking about it at all?
For us, surely the relevant point is the law?
Despite explaining the need for a standard process, I do get some funny looks from cadets, when I mention pellets in the declaration…
I get that. Especially when you can purchase pellets on Amazon.
I look at it as setting a standard across all WS.
Yes, fair point. (Basically don’t do air rifle here so never had to administer a declaration in that situation.)
True - but you could very easily bin the requirement for an ammo orderly with air rifle - pellets only.
We’ve asked for a ‘Cadet’ version of the declaration which uses words they might actually understand instead of the waffle it currently is.
SASC aren’t forthcoming with that though.
Next time you throw anything their way, please ask about ammo orderly for air rifle - superfluous!
As a cadet I never had trouble understanding the declaration, I just didn’t realise at the time it was based on the false premise that cadets are subject to KRs (QRs at the time).
And it was probably much simpler, words to the effect of "I have no ammunition in my possession" - the declaration has changed several times to (a) cover all aspects of OME** & (b) to plonk in the “I will report anyone else…” based on the SAS case (handgun, et all, including live grenades) where they all allegedly knew about each others’ illegal souvenirs & didn’t report things up the chain.
Supposedly, the “surrender” container (which was actually a skip) had to be emptied several times prior to that court martial hitting the street. Top prize was reported as a live RPG!! 
(*** which I always have to expand for cadets!)
We used to add “… pyrotechnics, or parts thereof …”, but only if we’d been in contact with them (e.g. not after .22 shooting on the indoor range).
My ammo orderly doubles up as managing the Butts Register, and taking pictures, while i (and the rest of the team) run the range.
Depends on the size of your team / type of range. Ours is for an indoor 5.5m 3 lane (3P capable) air rifle range.
Me - RCO, one other person as FA, one other RCO who can act as safety supervisor (normally ammo orderly). CLF logs / scores actioned in between details.
If the other RCO isn’t available, then the FA person can act as ammo orderly - but this prevents them from doing other duties in sqn (no more than about 10m from range). This is not best use of resources - if no safety supervisor, then it’s max of 2 firers anyway. RCO could easily place pellets out as “ammo orderly.”
Other less than ideal considerations - our FA person is an SAAI - but can’t act as safety supervisor. That’s “sub-optimal.” Similarly, for AR, has anyone done a risk comparison / consideration of allowing one RCO to supervise 3 firers (rather than currently needing safety supervisor)?
So, bin ammo orderly for air rifle shooting; allow SAAIs to be safety supervisor, rethink 1:2 supervision requirement for AR RCO.
Thats why we run a 3rd parade night twice a month, just for LMFT or WHT renewals.
However, were detracting from the original post.
.
Queens Regulations! Hazzah!
This topic was automatically closed 60 minutes after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.