The statement is more around knowing and understanding the lessons in Cadet Training Skill at Arms.
As @bob1 says the course isn’t delivering full lessons and this is where most people struggle is lack of knowledge of the lessons.
Most SATT’s also run Pre-SAAI courses which help with understanding the requirements for the course.
I was told that lessons now need to be memorised and delivered during the course without referring to a lesson plan. Is that correct? It’s certainly put me off, as I haven’t got time to memorise 9 lessons.
It shouldn’t be a case of memorising nine lessons. If you’re familiar with the drills, and the teaching techniques and wording, all you should need to memorise is the order of the lessons (even that should follow some logical progression).
It’s been a while since I did my saai course but from memory whilst we didn’t need to learn lessons verbatim the expectation was that your lesson plans would act as prompts rather than “reading from a script”
So you do need to memorise & know but you should be able to use a lesson plan for guidance.
More up to date advice may be available 
Certainly on the one I went on, you’re not allowed any notes or lesson plans in front of you, and they expect the content to be delivered as per the book.
It doesn’t have to be the exact words, except for the sections in red and bold.
I found it a slightly odd way of teaching as in all the other topics I teach in RAFAC I have some form of visual aid (we do love our PowerPoints) and I’d check with my lesson plans from time to time just to keep on track, especially if we’ve had to go over something a few times because cadets struggled with it.
So SAAI is done completely differently to MOI then…
I always like to have lesson notes to structure the lesson. I don’t read from them, just step by steps so I don’t miss a whole section when I get into the flow.
If I were told to guess before seeing this, I’d have assumed SAA would have to follow something and almost tick it off as you go so nothing is missed.
It’s closer to teaching drill where you have to use a standardised training technique with the lesson almost a mutual.
With a bit of muscle memory & repetition it is straightforward but if you have an interruption or unplanned event it can disrupt your flow & screw your lesson.
Would be interested to hear from an experienced SAAI assessor on their take as it I imagine that the truth may be closer to minimal referring to lesson plan rather than absolute no but it would come down to the actual marking scheme (& not the technic or a “higher” standard that some assessor may hold to)
Exactly how I teach fieldcraft or any other practical subject especially outdoors (where there’s a chance of interruption).
I have my Nyrex to hand but not in front of me, and I have key points written out. I might just jot these down in a notebook, with any adjustments (example - WTAS - shadow - change position of squad as sun moves)
Also so I can recap and see if anything is missed.
Granted SAAI needs to be a bit more rigid, from the above example WTAS can be taught in any order, stripping the rifle not!
If I look at SMS event history, I can only see a single L98 IWT in the last 12 months.
In assessments the criteria particularly for subject matter ranges from Covered in exact detail, most points covered, to major subject knowledge gaps. Subject matter, the manner it is taught, the sequence of the lesson, question technique and other elements are all assessed individually within the lessons so your subject knowledge may be excellent, but if you are just lecturing it, your lesson could still be graded as non competent, so there needs to be a balance.
Lesson delivery certainly doesn’t have to be verbatim, but using the terminology from the pamphlet is encouraged as it does aid in covering the subject matter.
Notes can be used discreetly, and placements of these is actually covered in the course and encouraged by ARTAT who assess the courses.
We were told absolutely not. They actually referred to it as something that ‘used to be done’
I struggle to memorise big chunks of text but there were others on my course who had it verbatim, but dull as ditchwater. Might work for a regular who’s being paid to be there but not for a cadet!
Who was telling no ? Was it the assessors or the volunteer SATT instructors.
Sometimes best practice gold standards ends up being the minimum passing standard due to mission creep.
Instructors. The assessor didn’t really say much at all.
Unfortunately you do get slightly varying information even from the ARTAT officers/WO’s that oversee the all the RMQ & SAAI Courses. Generally nothing dramatic but slight differences in how they want things delivered or assessed. So then the SATT’s have to change their delivery based on this. Interested to know which SATT did your course, intrigued to know their methodology on this one.
Some ARTAT also get involved with de-briefing students, others leave it for the SATT.
None I have come across however have said absolutely no notes, but they do want them discreet, disguised and students not to be reliant on them.
Edited to add the bold section.
Within LaSER, 8.6% of cadets have completed Blue Fieldcraft. That statistic is likely to be similar throughout the country (we last checked the numbers a few months ago and they were similar then). There should be a focus on trying to get every cadet to experience fieldcraft through the delivery of Blue Fieldcraft. Still, it is important to continue to deliver all levels of the PTS; doing so gives opportunities for cadets to progress, for staff development, and to maintain the capability to deliver those levels.
Much of what I am about to write has already been covered; hopefully, I’ll be able to add a little more context and get as much into one place as possible. I’ll also publish this as a Teams post so the entire RAFAC has visibility.
Blue Fieldcraft was designed to prepare cadets for deployed training; it gives them the skills they need to literally survive, including feeding, hygiene and shelter. Let’s not denigrate those skills as many a human has sadly died from not getting those basics correct. It was designed with Sqn delivery in mind. The FTI(R) qualification was designed to go with it: a qualification as simple as we could make it that finds a balance between safe delivery and enabling delivery at the lowest level. Again, let’s not underestimate the importance of assurance of this qualification given the importance of the skills being taught by its holders.
The decision to mandate the rifle in Bronze Fieldcraft came from many desires. We wanted realistic and demanding training, and so too do the cadets. I have yet to find a cadet who has not loved Bronze Fieldcraft. Next is that JSP 814 states that fieldcraft “[…] should be conducted with cadets carrying GP rifles whenever appropriate.” If the lesson stores include a rifle then it is probably appropriate to carry the rifle. Finally, there are many lessons which we have previously conducted without the rifle which should, for good reasons, be conducted with the rifle. A classic example is camouflage and concealment. Concealment without the rifle and without the mindset that one conceals oneself to avoid the enemy but also to have the tactical advantage incase one needs to engage the enemy entirely defeats the purpose of the concealment. Without the rifle, this emphasis is lost. Moreover, concealment with and without the rifle are different; with the rifle, one’s positioning is more restricted, one must think about concealing the rifle itself, one needs to ensure the muzzle has adequate clearance and that there are no obstacles to the right of the ejection port, one must be able to observe one’s arcs of fire using the rifle sights, and so on. To teach concealment without the rifle will only require the lesson to be taught again with the rifle in the future, which wastes the time (including monetary value) of everyone involved.
Have we prohibited teaching camouflage and concealment (or similar lessons) without the rifle? No. You may still teach the syllabus without the rifle, ensuring the delivery is progressive. However, cadets won’t earn the right to PTS awards as a result of such training. Sometimes training without the rifle is even desirable; when teaching IF&M, doing so initially without the rifle can be useful to break the training into stages: without the rifle to focus on leapfrog and caterpillar, then adding the rifle once that has been understood. That is typically all in the one lesson, however, not as two distinct events with the latter there to make up for what was lacking in the former.
So can you still go and play hide and seek in your neighbour’s field? Yes. However, to what training benefit that is worthy of the CFAV’s and cadet’s time, and the tax-payers money? Little, I suggest.
Delivering lessons without the rifle can actually increase overall risk. If you teach camouflage and concealment to cadets without the rifle, there is a risk of them progressing without ever being taught it ‘properly’, with the rifle, with knock-on consequences. A cadet may say they have been taught the lesson and activity planners / instructors may accept that to permit progression. Then, the cadet takes-up an unsafe position in concealment, which might otherwise have not happened had they received the proper training in the first place. Similar can be said for moving, field signals, obstacle crossing and more.
L98A2 IWT is a bit of a blocker, I agree. Before the launch of the fieldcraft PTS, we had started to permit, via a change in ACP 18 Vol 1, carrying the rifle in fieldcraft without ‘full’ IWT and without holding a WHT. That was reversed, primarily over concerns of recording training: how does one know whether the cadet has been trained in the required lessons if no WHT is logged and if there is no way to record Rifle Lessons on SMS? We have a meeting in just over a week (we only set the day today; this is live work in progress) about improving all things military skills in SMS, etc., including resolving this issue. Who knows … once that is resolved, will we see the return of fieldcraft with the rifle without ‘full’ IWT? I’ll stick my neck out: I hope so and that is my ambition.
That point brings me to an example of how shooting and fieldcraft can be symbiotic. Consider a military skills programme where cadets first learn Blue Fieldcraft, then complete the required Rifle Lessons to carry the rifle in the field (one day of training), then Bronze Fieldcraft, then the rest of the IWT & the WHT (another single day), then some LFMT, then Silver Fieldcraft. How does this demonstrate a level of symbiosis? Cadets learn how to be organised and how to wear and maintain their kit, which can be useful admin before Rifle Lessons. IWT can be tiring, particularly for smaller cadets, and breaking it up can improve a cadet’s performance (less fatigue and a chance for more physical development between the IWT halves). Using the rifle in Bronze in the middle of ‘IWT’ means cadets don’t forget what they’ve learned and can consolidate their training, with lots of practice of NSPs, etc., which then breeds confidence in handling the rifle. That makes the rest of the IWT easier. Using the rifle in fieldcraft also reduces risks during LFMT, with cadets having had more time and practice in basic handling drills and stoppages before using them with live ammunition. That also aids progression on the range as less time is spent resolving handling issues. Fieldcraft with the rifle between LFMT shoots also helps cadets stay familiar with the rifle, increasing their overall exposure and frequency of exposure, reducing failure rates in WHTs and saving time with remedial instruction. Fieldcraft truly can help shooting.
We probably haven’t yet found the correct balance in the rules around local / deployed training, FTI, ‘Activity Owner’ (I suggest we stop referring to ECO when we’re not talking about using ammunition), etc. We know that and that is something we are looking at in the current review. E.g. there are arguments to split the instructional and the management elements of FTI, which we are considering.
Three final points.
Looking back on ‘all the things we used to do’ can also be framed as ‘all the things we used to get away with’; not everything we used to do was good and, frankly, having been a cadet through it, I’m glad it’s not what cadets are subjected to nowadays.
Given the stat at the start of this post, I’d love to see efforts being directed at bringing that figure up with less concern with making Bronze ‘easier’; what’s the point of making Bronze more accessible by dropping the rifle (also making it less useful) when still less than 10% of our cadets have completed Blue?
This is not intended as a rant or to be defensive, rather me sharing what I know. We absolutely value feedback and, as I’ve mentioned, we are looking at changes in the current review. So, thank you; thank you for your feedback, which I hope keeps coming, and thank you to those who make the effort to deliver valuable, realistic and demanding fieldcraft training to our cadets.
Thank you for the thorough post.
The intention is clear, but the practice locally, at least, isn’t matching up to that.
I feel there’s a couple of reasons for this:
Locally, the FTI(R) courses are being run as a 2 day course. I assume this isn’t the intent, given it’s meant to be a simple qualification for use on squadron. I’d hope this could be achieved in an evening Teams call.
I suspect this is a local region issue, but that implies that the national specification for FTI(R), FTI, and conversion between isn’t clearly enough defined.
This is evident, but for many squadrons in my wing the only way this could be achieved would be death by PowerPoint - there simply isn’t the space to deliver practically on unit.
This then makes the hurdles to delivery (assuming an intent to make it engaging and interesting):
That’s a daunting task for a squadron short on staff.
Alternatively, you get through it as painlessly as possible in a classroom, which has little training value (and could, by your arguments above, be dangerous).
Frankly, it’s also a bit dull, having no gucci bits at all in it.
The bronze syllabus looks great, and I’m looking forward to being involved in delivery for the first time over the next few months.
It does feel like a big step between blue and bronze, though.
Ultimately, we could be taking cadets who have never left a classroom and sticking them in shelters for a weekend.
I do feel like there should either be a intermediary between blue and bronze, or the bronze level needs lowered a bit.
No different to Bronze DofE . . .
Fair point.
The official course is one day, which may be (and ideally is) delivered online, followed by an approved FTI assessing the first time they instruct. If done in person, this can all be done in one day.
Hold that thought.
This absolutely must be avoided. How to cook by powerpoint? How to pack by powerpoint? No. If you have no space on the Sqn to do this then you’re not doing any fieldcraft on the Sqn anyway, which means deploying, which is no different however we structure the syllabus.