I have an ECO qual from back in the day when it was a separate thing - is that no longer valid following the changes from FCA to FCI to FTI(R)? - Would not surprise me!
It should get converted to one of the new qualifications in line with the guidance in the policy.
If you can evidence having delivered FC during 2023/24 without weapons then you should get FTI(R). For FTI, you’d need evidence of a lesson with weapons AND organising a deployed exercise.
You need an FTI qual to run an exercise (ACP16 Vol 1 page 9).
They seemed to go pretty well together in my phase 2 infantry training. Also, when I was in the ACF everyone taught fieldcraft — as it was our bread and butter — but some of us taught skill-at-arms, marksmanship training, and ran ranges as well.
3 Likes
Is it just me, or is FC just getting too difficult with the introduction of the PTS syllabus 
As some have already said, it was so much easier before COVID and the PTS. Squadrons could run a pseudo FC activity without all the issues that this brings.
You don’t need weapons to generate interest in forms of FC, it’s only the JL tribe that have generate the beast we have now.
4 Likes
I think a lot of what was happening pre covid that people saw as ‘Fieldcraft’ was generally not actual fieldcraft. Getting cadets cam-creamed up and covered it bits of tree on a parade night, but doing so with unqualified staff with no real lesson objectives. Certainly very fun, for cadets and staff alike, but was never really ‘proper’. Personally, I think that’s maybe what the blue level should be…
When I was a cadet we used to do a FC ex every month or so at a wood owned by a local farmer, it worked pretty well. Our Sqn was also right on a playing field and small wooded area which was great for delivering the training.
Don’t be ridiculous; that would make sense!
Yes but that was about shooting & killing the enemy which is a little out of scope for young people.
I have no issue with the syllabus complementing each other but it’s different mindsets - something that that the ACF ascribes to as well.
It’s not our bread & butter so the culture of teaching it isn’t there & the lesson order is always a little clunky.
Before hand we use to use a CCF Cadet Training manual & teach the lessons out of there and it worked. It did mean that you didn’t get onto setting ambushes but that wasn’t really needed in the ATC due to lack of blank firing.
I think the wider issue is the PTS - it’s become restrictive & prevents the innovation & adaptation you once had & people trying new stuff.
I don’t know if bronze could be split into part 1 & part 2 but if so perhaps part 1 could be weapon less put part 2 must be with weapons? However I get the point you don’t want to degrade the training as the basic movement with rifle should be engrained before they start doing the more leadership based stuff at silver.
From observing the ACF (as we share a night with them from time to time) they have a few things in the star syllabus which make delivery a bit easier:
-
they have wooden cut out weapons and don’t need additional approvals to use them;
-
they have split their IWT onto 2 modules and completing L1-4 allow use of the rifle for FT (they mostly use DPs where possible)
-
where it makes sense some lessons are run 2x, eg movement with and without the weapon. Reasoning being you might not always have a weapon. And in fact the manual did split it that way.
-
Cadet NCOs can teach fieldcraft
5 Likes
Where I am there’s maybe 20% of each that aren’t the other (SAAI / FTI) and the FTIs are a key target for next cohort of skillies.
I don’t think it’s a poor assumption. I posit that we’ve been going through a lull in both and although over 12 months old now, ACP16 is still in a build-up / teething phase in many areas, which will take time to fully push through to the other side.
I suspect that we will begin to see a reintroduction. I’m keen to rewrite a project I started under the old scheme to design a CPT exercise. I hope that we will eventually begin to see Bronze and Silver CPT weekends.
We will eventually need to calm down a little, because it’s true that a lot are focusing on the badge delivery, but we will expend our ability to maintain cadets’ interest if the courses are the only offering.
Losing their interest, or not giving them options between Bronze / Silver or Silver / Gold will lead to skill fade and increase the burden on those higher levels.
I suggest this might need some formal direction or guidance to prompt people that it’s ok to not deliver a PTS weekend, provided the exercised skills are from the relevant level of PTS stated in the attendance criteria. i.e. you can’t set your criteria at Blue and then exercise Bronze skills.
I’ve wondered about this, considering a lot of the cost is probably in transport and OME (if OME is used). You can attend part one as an easier-to-run, toe-dip alternative for cadet to get easier access to and/or test out if they like it, but not qualify, or jump straight to part 2 or attend part 2 later.
My challenge to myself was the additional complication and the problems it can cause down the line.
If Part 1 stayed with FTI, then that’s a distraction that many might not bother with, which undermines and wastes the effort to create this stream.
If Part 1 was opened to FTI(R) with an ECO bolt-on, then that potentially disincentivises progression to FTI and could become problematic for higher levels.
Only while / if focusing on the delivery of the PTS lessons to push the badges. This is where the CPT only events would fill the gap.
Not my experience on Bronze and Silver events. Plenty there that wouldn’t be JL material or personalities. All enjoying it.
To the cadets, while not firing, the rifle is just another part of the kit and another consideration. I’ve not yet seen anyone fire blank and then refuse to recharge their mags before the next patrol.
I’m not aware of any cadets that are put off fieldcraft because of the weapon component. Not to say there won’t be some, but it’s not an obvious blocker.
As when the PTS was released, it’s the CFAV that are offering up these barriers and pitfalls as issues. The cadets don’t enjoy it less from what I see, and now have an additional fun-factor.
I think some here are forgetting that there were plenty of occasions under the old scheme where fieldcraft became boring to some - same lessons, same exercises, no progression… and eventually the novelty wore off for many.
My current view is that we are still in a build-up phase and the whole things needs some time and support to push through these perceived barriers.
Mil-Skills SME is being proposed here as well. Co-ordination and communication are going to be key components in building the programme and pool of skills required for both shooting and FT streams.
1 Like
There’s a route for cadets with MOI to go on FTI(R)
Edit: think I’m remembering that correctly. @bob1 ?
1 Like
We have that - they need to be a level up - but it isn’t as ingrained as it is in the ACF (but then they’re not teaching airframes or cyber…)
2 Likes
I understand these points, but for me (and probably many others), I have no interest in carrying a weapon in the field as my priority is delivering local training, which is unlikely to ever involve weapons.
I also agree with these points. But the issue isn’t weapons putting them off, it’s not being able to get onto bronze courses because they have to have done IWT, and either can’t through lack of availability of courses or because they’re not physically or medically able.
This should be enough to provide dispensation to attend and not carry.
The access to IWT is a barrier, and that in turn comes down to facilities and staff.
I don’t have access to the numbers right now but off the top of my head we’ve had places on IWT for slightly under 10% of the cadets in the Wing.
That’s less than the annual turnover of cadets and certainly not enough to support the move to fieldcraft with the rifle (or indeed arms drill, or the move away from the L144 to focus on the L98).
I’d rather have more access to L98s or DPs than dilute the fieldcraft, but as an instructor I can see the case for a more granular transition between Blue and Bronze, or allowing FTI(R)s to teach a few of the Bronze lessons as ‘a blue plus’ which would free up time on the Bronze to get into some more CPT.
1 Like
You’re right, but it doesn’t really work like that.
When I say physically unable, I don’t mean because of a disability (although that may be the case for some), I just mean cadets who are deemed unable to handle a weapon in prone for extended periods due to their size/age.
I think this is another good argument for making a change. Having a Bronze level course reliant on things which in most cases can only be provided at wing level seems counter to the purpose of the PTS.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try to tackle the issue of qual’d CFAV and access to IWT / WS before opting to dilute to work around those issues.
But what if we can’t reach that point? Our wing currently runs one IWT weekend a month, and it’s massively oversubscribed every time. I appreciate we’re likely an outlier due to our size but it shows it can happen.
Future bridge.
But one IWT per month doesn’t sound bad compared to others.