3 and 11 benefit from large areas and are easier to teach there but the principles can be taught in smaller spaces, or for 11 a space that you wouldn’t associate with being training area.
For 9 improvisation is key, you could almost get away with some leadership kit making 2 fake trees to demonstrate the types of acceptable basha and how you would go about constructing them.
I’ve seen units use kettlebells as peg weights so you can simulate guy lines etc on hard surfaces.
We don’t have any grass. Or trees.
How do we assess the 2-person shelter?
Except FCIs (without IWT and/or having delivered recently with weapons) are now FTI(R), and my training included admin and use of DTE…Twice - first as an AI then a fieldcraft ECO. I’ve been planning, delivering, and running training on DTE for over 10 years for up to 50 cadets at a time.
Suddenly I’m inept?
You mean the document I’ve been producing a very similar version of under the name of EASP (given way now to accommodate the more correct usage of an exercise with weapons)? The templated additions are minor at most… And are templated with examples and explanatory notes. Almost all of those sections have been included in some form in anything I’ve submitted in the last 6 years for fieldcraft.
If you feel you should be an FTI instead of the (R) then speak with your Regional fieldcraft officer to fill the gaps and get the higher qual, it’s all written there in the transition details.
In the dropdown to suggest a change, ACP 16 Vol 1 and Vol 2 are not actually listed there 
Do I need to make a suggestion to change the suggestion form?
A good point…
Whoaaaa
From Volume 1:
…it is expected that cadets and CFAV conducting fieldcraft training will do so to a high standard of professionalism…
…Wearing the Cadet Helmet during training improves the realism for the participants…
From Volume 2:
… Poor demonstrations are of little value…
… The testing standards must be rigorously kept…
… The Blue Fieldcraft test is to be taken on completion of the training and is to be conducted in an area where there is a soft surface…
I see no realism, professionalism, rigorous upkeep of standards, or soft surfaces in building fake trees and using weights to hold cords. I do see a poor demonstration and lack of consistency between standards. I’d venture that any fake trees are often going to be more dangerous than real ones…
This should be done.
Very efficient 
The gaps are CWS-based, and blue doesn’t require CWS?
I’m calmer than I was; I’m just not seeing the logic behind this particular gate-keeping decision.
It’s also pretty odd to be pushing professionalism and realism in how you train and brief instructors and EAs (which I’m fully on board with and have been pushing that line for years), and then turn around and say “yeah make a fake tree in a classroom”.
It would be a pedantic argument to make, but possibly not exactly in-keeping with the SST either 
The logic is based around what people wanted… the vast majority of non-fieldcraft people wanted an easily accessible limited qual to teach the basics on a unit/euf so their cadets can then go and join in exercises on DTE and make more efficient use of the limited bookings people will get.
They didn’t want to have to do days of training to teach basic fieldcraft so we had to draw a line.
You can draw what you like from my musings on here about how to improvise lessons, how lessons are taught and how effective they are is up to individual instructors/assessors and everyones scenario will differ. ACTO 13 lays out the capability to define an EUF if you don’t have any form of suitable space on your unit.
Alternatively you can upskill your qual by bridging the qualification gap as defined in the IBN.
We’ve been as liberal as we can be in how we have applied the transition rules and devised the syllabus while navigating a minefield of wants from the volunteers, demands from the DDHs and needs from the headquarters. It’s not perfect and neither are we but it’s a damn sight better than what we had before.
That it is
Now we just need some courses to qualify new people as FCI (R) or FCI, we have had a long period without any ability to get staff new to Fieldcraft on board.
Understandable, but how is that mutually exclusive with allowing “fieldcraft people” to do the same thing but on the DTE that they have experience of?
The wording in Vol 1 suggests that they still do, though - they need to have received the lessons from someone authorised.
I don’t disagree that instructors should be trained. I’m off on a tangent I didn’t need to go on. Please focus on the part about not being able to use DTE 
Yeah, this is an interesting gap that for some people courses haven’t been delivered when an FCI course could have been ran.
I’ve already had emails from people asking about courses and will be discussing with the team about the T3 elements in the coming days to enable courses to be delivered ASAP.
I’ve gone through them a couple of times. I appreciate that a lot of hard work has gone into this but my initial reaction is that it is the old ACP16 from 15years back which was not suitable when published & showed a lack of understanding of the topic it was meant to deliver.
I think that a part of this is some knee jerk pessimism & cynicism on my part around ATC fieldcraft so I want to give it the benefit of the doubt & go through it properly with a fine detail eye.
It feels better but I’m not sure so I want to look at the nuances before I start ripping apart something that a bunch of people have dedicated a load of their personal time to actually try and improve.
It’s easy to criticise from the sidelines & nit pick others hard work. It’s a lot harder to design & implement something that is then accepted by others.
We’re always open to feedback and it would be interesting to understand any issues you see.
I wouldn’t say it is. As both volumes, it’s definitely a better document with a better layout and clearer information.
There are a couple of parts that take more than a single read to get through. But then again, I don’t see that as an issue when it needs to be thoroughly understood.
Certainly interested in that side of it. I don’t have as much time to spend on this as I’d like, due to other commitments, but training others to deliver even at FCI R level would be an effective use of the time I do have.
A question I’ve heard a lot - will there be a way for staff cadets to gain the FCI qual? I am aware of some keen as beans staff cadets who want to get involved
FTI(R) is Module B of the Gold syllabus.