Mandatory Training (Climatic Injuries and First Aid)

Over the past few months I have notice activities being posted where it is stating that cadets must have completed either or both FA training and Climatic Injuries training. While I agree that both are very important and while undertaking Adv Trg or Field Craft and be a life saver.


Are we losing site of the relevance of this training last weekend my wing shooting team held dry weapons training at a local training camp. All training was done indoors and all cadets were under the direct supervision of staff at all times. Failure to have either Climatic Injuries or FA training recorded on BADER would stop the cadets attending. Today the JIs for the Choir camp fell into my inbox and Para 22 Health and Safety and Safeguarding Briefing included as a climatic injuries brief would take place.

Are we in danger of losing perspective on this issues. Telling the cadets to have a bottle of water and keep hydrated in the classroom and open the windows if it gets a bit hot is not a climatic injuries issue.
By trivialising the need for this training are we losing the impact of its relevance so while out on an exercise and it is really hot the cadets forget the important points of climatic injuries training because they have seen it 15 the instructor has presented it 15 times and nobody was taking a blind bit of notice of anything.


I can’t see the point of this. Firstly, for such activities you should have properly trained staff present for first aid purposes. The only reason why you should need such training is if the activity is not closesly supervised. An example would be a DofE expedition. You are just adding unnecessary hoops to jump through.

On the flip side, the training the cadets have does not absolve the supervising CFAVs of responsibility when the cadets forget their training and go down with hypothermia.

absolutely and I have repeated this same argument with the “need” for TG Forms 21/23

Everything they contain, save the signature confirming parental consent for that specific event, is listed in the F3822 (or should be if used correctly) - yet a day trip to visit a museum or airshow I need to have a full A4 page (or more) from each individual

I think the point is that it’s been identified as part of a suite of courses / training which is the baseline mandatory training requirement for all staff and cadets. This is just enforcing that mandatory nature. It’s not optional on a case by case basis; if you want to take part in the organisation activities then you have to have your baseline set of training (first aid, climatic injuries, HSE, safeguarding refresher is the adult set for example).

That’s all well and good when you’re at work and you can shop around for things and the company will provide ample opportunity and give you the time off to do it. As with my FAAW.
In the ATC you are doing it at the weekends when you could well be faced with something more important than an ATC course (who’d have thought it possible), plus the provision is sparse and widespread.

I am (quite happy ((under sufferance for a days pay) delete as necessary)) to undertake any or all of the above training as it allows me to conduct my role as a CFAV. The point I am making is that the cadets are not allowed to participate in events if their mandatory training is not up to date. Even is the training is done indoors.

If the training has been identified as the minimum set required, why should it matter whether it’s indoors or not? If they don’t have their minimum training up to date, then they don’t get to play. It’s not like it’s hard to get it up to date is it? It should be incorporated into the unit programme or the weekend activity to make sure people are current.

If climatic injuries awareness training has been decided as a mandatory prerequisite for indoor activities, then somebody needs a hard reality check.

Staff/DS? Sure. Cadets? Ridiculous.
And when did being first-aid trained ever become mandatory for a cadet?

1 Like

Isn’t that only mandatory for people engaging in FC training? Not shooting, or AT, or any other activity?

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to put everyone through it once a year, but to exclude cadets from activities where the Climatic injuries brief isn’t relevant, is madness

But then when we get policy which says (a la BPSS) which says thou shalt do this… unless this, in which case, or this case, do this…people complain.

It’s a basic set of mandatory training to be done once a year and really is not that hard to achieve. I suspect the practical reality is there is not sufficient compliance where it actually matters, so it’s being enforced until people are actually delivering it.

Certainly not in W&W as the RC (as DDH) has laid down it as the minimum set of mandatory training full stop. It’s also Procedure 30 in ACP5 which makes it mandatory for all staff and cadets on an annual basis.

Good old RC W&W he won’t be on a squadron doing this, like we have to. These people should be out here volunteering their services to do all this, rather than sitting in an ivory tower issuing edicts.

It has taken us 5 weekends over 2 years to get cadets YFA’d and at least one this year and 3 sessions on average a year to do the climate rubbish.

My mistake!

It seems like someone has included it in ACP5 and not briefed my wing… Ho hum.

Climatic Injury Training on an annual basis is Mandatory for all cadets and has been for some time (at least 2 years), Heart Start for all Cadets within 3 months of joining is also Mandatory and has been for ages (3 years or so).

Making Squadrons do what has been Mandatory for ages to send their Cadets on external courses is not a bad thing, it’s a very simple and effective way of making Squadrons do what they should already be doing.

Is it, though?

You hold a climatic injuries brief on 1st Jan. Cadet bloggs joins on Jan the 2nd. Cadet bloggs cannot do anything at Wing Level for 364 days, until the next course - even if the wing level stuff is all indoors, and the climatic injuries brief is irrelevant?

You could complete the brief as part of 1st class, but, then there will always be a period where some cadets are out of ticket…

Personally, if I were running training where climatic injuries have been identified as a risk in my risk assessment, then I would brief en mass at the start of training.

I run an intake system so with basic planning everyone gets a Climatic Injuries Brief. Yes their may be a period when a Cadet first joins that they aren’t in ticket, but they won’t be doing external courses at that point.

It takes half a night and they have provided the training material, we tend to pair it with the annual Code of Conduct refresher.

While C.I. training is mandatory for cadets, failure to meet that should not equate to effective suspension of the cadet for all activities, only prohibition from participation in activities where it holds specific relevance. I wont’ whinge too strongly about how poorly the risk vs effort has been balanced here. I accept that it is useful as a prerequisite for specific activity types, but having it as a 20 min briefing once every 3 years would be manageable.

While ACTO8 does “require” heartstart within 3 months and YFA within 18 months, this is a poorly-conceived pipedream by TG1 and does not survive contact with reality (scheduling, instructor/cadet availability etc.) It is also not a specific prerequisite for any cadet at any cadet activity except perhaps a higher FA course or competition! While some units might be able to remain in compliance, this is not the case for every unit across the organisation.

Merely taking the line of “mandatory thing is mandatory” for these items simplistic and a damaging but is the easy way out for a leader who would be serving us better by challenging these expectations and working to provide the Corps with a good solution. I doubt it will happen because the whole hierarchy has fallen on the wrong side of risk-aversity and bum-covering and is terrified that a reasonable approach might leave them vulnerable.

The C.I. issue is a challenge because it has been imposed as a blanket requirement by panicked senior officers in the MOD. The first aid requirements are our own doing and can be quashed or moderated easily if somebody wakes up and informs TG1 that the ACTO is unrealistic and to redraft the ACTO with the timelines as a desire instead of a requirement.

On top of this, Bader SMS needs to do a much better job of presenting these things in a dashboard overview so that those trying to manage it have an easier chance of doing so. Improvements have been made over the last year or so, but it is still report-based for specific areas of interest.


I find the idea of requiring formal Climatic Injuries Training without exception prior to attending a course - especially an indoor course - baffling.

It’s the instructor’s responsibility to ensure their teaching space is suitable. It’s the instructor’s responsibility to release suitable JIs, which would cover clothing, water bottles, sun cream, etc.

It’s the instructor’s responsibility to make ongoing assessments of their students’ welfare and the prevailing conditions.

It’s the instructor’s responsibility to issue the welcome and H+S brief relevant to the course, location, and conditions.

And here’s the thing… It’s most definitely mandatory prior to FT and reasonably so, yet everyone I know still includes a climatic injury brief at the commencement of training. Because it’s potentially critical, to guarantee the message is there and fresh, and because they take their roles at FCIs seriously. What worries me is that others are potentially using a requirement for prior training in an attempt to absolve themselves from their responsibilities as an instructor.


Sorry but I don’t find the requirement to be able to provide Heartstart Training to be unrealistic, becoming a Heartstart Instructor is not a difficult process and any reasonably competent Wing First Aid Officer should be running sufficient courses to cover all of their units. (I’ve known Wings to build it into their Wing conference for example). It’s not like it was imposed yesterday, this has been in the ACTO for some time and if people have been dragging their feet they need a kick up the backside.

Climatic Injury Training is also mandatory in ACP5 and although some might not see it as relevant for classroom based activities that’s not the point. The point is that if Squadrons aren’t conducting regular mandatory training then a tool needs to be imposed to make them comply and exclusion from external Course until Mandatory Training is complete can be that tool. (Not saying it’s the route I would go down and if Wings are choosing to take that route then it should certainly have been advertised in advance that this step was going to be taken).

Then you are in a fortunate position. It may not particularly challenging, but nevertheless we are not in a position to guarantee that every squadron has an available heartstart instructor and resources available for all units within a 3-month timescale, therefore it is not possible for this “mandatory” training to be delivered to cadets as expected.

I see no valid justification for any cadet FA training (exempt climatic injuries training) to be a requirement in the general environment. It is highly desirable and I encourage it, but I cannot in good conscience support it as a mandatory skill. I will bend a little on climatic injuries awareness but would only put the brakes on an activity if the climate is a factor. (does CI briefly cover the requirements of DoE expeds?)

I would also like to be rid of the “mandatory DVD” and replace it with a 10-minute video that covers all of the bases without repeating itself 10 times and wasting ages on comedy intros and over-long scenarios. It can be one of a series of 10-min (absolute max) videos on the other regular aspects of cadet life.

I do grok the general concept - it is easier to make it mandatory and force the issue than it is to actually manage a genuine requirement for every activity based on relevance. CI is a factor on a normal parade evening as much as it is trying to run op a welsh hill in summer, but the level at which it is being pitched falls on the wrong side of reasonable and is deserving of challenge. Remember, this is a whinging pot, not a policy meeting :wink: