I was trying to be diplomatic & positive about our training when I suggested utilising the MoI but 100% agree & it’s not much good for instructional techniques either.
A lot of FCI courses are (were?) focused on actually teaching the subject matter to staff & not the instructional side so perhaps a separate short version for qualified/experienced cadets to get them qualified?
Or just simplify that you can teach two levels down as a cadet so silver can teach blue without any additional authorisation.
That does though create another training gap - which is not a criticism, just an observation.
We have staff who want to do FC. Unless they have been a cadet/regular/reserve we need to teach them the content, then how to teach. Without it becoming a burden.
All “wing” roles should purely be focussed on comliance AND train the trainer…unlocking access at a lower level for other people to deliver across an entire wing for them
If Wings are doing T3 then what are Regions doing? Why should there be 30x T3 people for a specialist subject which is hard to assure and who supports them in delivery?
RFCO should use their WFCO to help them deliver region wide T3, keeps standards up among the WFCO and makes it easier to standardise and assure.
Thats exactly the problem, there are too many people who are only interested in compliance, leaving delivery to the already stretched sqn staff. Wing staff need to be involved at ground level.
That’s an interesting statement. We’ve never followed the ACF’s LFMT syllabus; was that unsafe? If so, why have all three Cadet Forces adopted ACP 18 Vol 3 as the CSM? Why is doing something that the ACF doesn’t unsafe?
There are some options on this in the new syllabus / policies and it’s something we’ll review once the new policy and syllabus have had sufficient exposure.
Can’t hold appointments. Doesn’t mean there’s no way for them to be involved. Eg they could attend to offer advice on standardisation or best ways to do things. Let’s get away from SPO being a signature and move towards its intent of being a role that includes support and mentoring in addition to the assurance piece.
If CFAVs wish to attend an SAAI or any other shooting qualification course, they must first be suitably experienced. CFAVs shouldn’t be learning ‘load’ on the SAAI course. The same is true of a fieldcraft instructor course.
One Rgn I know is running a staff Bronze course 1-2 Jun in preparation for instructor courses in July.
This is problematic for the same reason @bob1 described for SATTs delivering M Qual.
How easy will it be to requal up to FCI? Or whatever it will be called now?
Thanks to the complete lack of a WG FCO since before Lockdown in my wing, the last time the quals changed, I was unable to be assessed for competence to carry me over to the present scheme. So I was just pootling on with the previous quals. Will it be easy to get current?
Also, are we still going to need TOPL to go down the local park, sit on a bench and judge distances?
FTA automatically changed to FCI. Whilst some Rgns required people to undergo some training to demonstrate competence in certain areas, the qualification remains. Remember: there is a big difference between being qualified to do something and being suitably experienced for it. Eg an SAAI is qualified to instruct on any rifle for which they are suitably experienced and current, so couldn’t just pick up an L81A2 and instruct on it without first becoming suitably experienced and current with it, regardless of the qualification. The same is true for any fieldcraft qualification; whilst you may have FCI, you don’t have the automatic right to teach everything. Not being current, however, does not mean your qualification is cancelled; you just need to regain currency out experience. That should be simple enough to do.
The SHOULD there is carrying a lot of weight. But a new WGFCO was appointed shortly before my pat leave, so hopefully I can sort out a currency session when I return. Thanks.
