It does strike me as silly that we don’t have standing orders, instead of repeat orders.
Then we could focus CROs on updating people about actual stuff that we need - like the release of PAM 5-C, ACP20, updated ACP4 etc.
And whilst I’m at it, all changes to documents should be made in red like AP1358c and ACP4 so we can easily see the new bits!
Order 12 is about the use of foam earplugs and refers to Pam21c, ch1, sec1, para 0110.
0110 is now in section 2 and refers to awarding qualifications, not hearing defence.
I’m also led to believe (Talon?) that the source for that whole regulation is obsolete by some years 
Some of the copy-and-paste sections for CROs do get reviewed but it is clear that some do not.
Fortunately we know who the sponsors for these repeat orders are and, therefore, who is not being as diligent as they might be
But we digress.
[quote=“incubus” post=11631]Order 12 is about the use of foam earplugs and refers to Pam21c, ch1, sec1, para 0110.
0110 is now in section 2 and refers to awarding qualifications, not hearing defence.
I’m also led to believe (Talon?) that the source for that whole regulation is obsolete by some years
[/quote]
I’m not sure what regulation you are referring to but I assume it is the age restriction on wearing ear plugs, in which case you are correct, it is out of date and there is no longer any such restriction.
The whole process of repeat orders in CROs has been a complete debacle for years.
They seem to grab them out on rotation every few months without actually considering that in many cases the orders have been either been superceded or ditched altogether.
Though it’s nice to be reminded that the No4 rifle is in the process of being withdrawn from service…I’d better make sure I comply by the 2008 deadline… :ohmy:
[off topic]
i did see somewhere (probably hidden in Sharepoint) the frequency repeat orders should be at. lets say there are 20 or repeat orders, a selection of these, lets say 8, are taken for each CRO based on a list indicating how often we (CFAVs) should be reminded
lets say of those 20
3 x once a year
5 x twice a year
5 x three times a year
5 x four times (quaterly)
2 x monthly
and as such it is a copy&paste task for the “author” but as identified without any thought of the content or consideration some of it maybe out of date!
[/off topic]
Hello, I am a WI and I am helping my wing with training soon. The guys from the SATT told me I was to teach according to the old PAM5c and I wasn’t allowed to teach the new stoppage lesson without the safety catch.
Could someone tell me where I stand with this? I think we should use the new one but we haven’t been given any advice from our region or wing since it was released.
thank you
They’re wrong, use the new one!
Agreed. Remind them of the Safe System of Training, and the definitions of Current and Competent.
Then carry on and teach the most current up-to-date drills.
Also, bear in mind that just because someone from the SATT told you to, it doesn’t necessarily let you off of teaching incorrect drills!
[quote]This pamphlet supersedes Pamphlet No. 5-C 2009 (Army Code No. 71807-C) which should now be destroyed.
IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE USING THE
LATEST VERSION OF THIS PAMPHLET. [/quote]
If you were to use the old Pam 5-C 2009 you would not be able to assess a valid WHT, as the only valid WHT for the L98A2 is in the new Pam 5-C 2013. If you were to use the ones from the old version of Pam 21-C the test would not technically be valid.
May I be so cheeky as to ask which SATT?
Of course, as stated abouve - the PAM to use is the current pam, not the old one, irrespective of whether they think its safer.
As above, latest edition of any publication supersedes earlier editions. It is the responsibility of everyone using ANY publication, to ensure they are using the latest version.
And back to applying the safety catch for the IA…
Really? Go on…
Where can I find out more?
Thanks. :cheer:
Has been promulgated locally by WShO. It is a change for all and will see the PAMs rewritten…
‘It’s Unsafe’ is the concern that has been raised from somewhere AFAIK
Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before some buffoon decided that they knew better.
I’ll believe that when I see it - I’ve not heard anything via the Army CoC about the safety catch on the IA drills being reinstated, and after all, the Army write PAM5C, not TG5.
Well the promulgation is an email from the chief instructor at Frimley and the sASC bod.
Quite, this is nothing to do with TG5.
Some old and bold ACF Colonel has got his knickers in a twist over this new and ‘terribly unsafe for cadets’ practice and has kicked up a fuss.
Apparently the instructors at CTC Frimley agree with him…
WTF!?
Finally we have a manual which has caught up with sense and ditched a pointless cadetism and now, thanks to Colonel Bogey, we’ve got to go back to the dark ages. :ohmy:
I for one agree with him on this one.
The procedure which works best for well-trained and well-drilled soldiers who are training to operate in combat situations is not the same as the procedure which works best for cadets who, though often well trained, have less exposure to the rifle than regular troops and who will be operating the weapon on a range with plenty of time to remedy any stoppages.
The additional safety-net we gain by applying the safety catch for stoppages is worth it in our environment. The fact that a cadet procedure differs ever so slightly from that used by the regulars bothers me not one iota.