That is exactly how I see the SME role, alongside delivering the higher level stuff.
We have to get people in at the lower levels to have the progression.
That might depend on your Wing and timescales perhaps. The Sqn I was a cadet on was fieldcraft through and through, as was the Sqn I moved to as staff (4-5 weekend exercises each year). Another local Sqn was even more active and we ran many joint activities.
Sadly I think fieldcraft disappeared from much of the ATC in about 2007-2010.
2 Likes
I agree, and that’s the issue we need to sort out.
My Wing asks for sqn staff to be allocated subject areas. So, on a sqn of 4 staff, I am currently the OC, Security Officer, Shooting Officer, Fieldcraft Officer H&S Officer, DofE Officer and Adj.
Obviously I need to give most of time to the OC role, so even though I really enjoy shooting and fieldcraft, and would love to deliver more DofE awards, they tend to get stuck on the back burner.
We need every squadron to have around 15 staff, all of whom have an interest in the subject they take on, as well as a desire to become instructors in classroom subjects as well.
Realistically, we will never achieve that, so let’s try and plan around it. Empower Sqn staff to deliver all subject areas at parade night level, including utilising local areas with having to become qualified to the nth degree.
4 Likes
Whilst I don’t do much fieldcraft now, I’ve done a bit in the past. Much like any other specialist area if you want to grow your instructor base then you need to inspire people who may not have any background in the activity to progress their own knowledge and end up wanting to teach others. Those who have a background already and enjoy it are already a captive audience for instructor progression. SMEs (whilst dealing with the governance side) should be focussing on inspiring staff to be able to teach these specialist subjects. That’s how you move sqns from not doing a certain activity to having the capability.
There is also the argument that teaching the ‘higher than a basic sqn level’ stuff to cadets also has value - particularly for the senior cadets - as the same argument applies here that they will be the staff of the future years. So maybe the priority for an SME, regardless of activity, should be the following to generate a motivated instructor base:
- Inspirational staff experiences (this can include senior cadets too) / qualification delivery
- Higher level cadet delivery
- Low level mass participation cadet delivery
oh i absolutely accept that and why i indicate “in my experience”…it may unique for our Wing - although would be surprised, but means there are ~1000 cadets and ~25 units that do not see “regular” FC taking place…
1 Like
Because we are using an Army Publication. The lesson format is styled in the same way as Weapons training.
That is the format the RAFAC have chosen to adopt and when members of staff go to ATF to be delivered their TrainTheTrainer course, that is how they expect the instructors in wings to deliver it.
It’s not ideal, it’s a pain, as it’s not really too fun for cadets and not easy to use on a Sqn, but in a large group of cadets at a Wing activity. It can be a more effective way on instructing.
It’s very much like Drill Training. ATF expect you use the Drill TP, but no one does in the ATC but it can be useful in certain situations.
I get the justification, but I just don’t see it as a particularly good one.
Theat method of delivery can be taught and assessed without ever having to touch a weapon - so we don’t we do it in the MOI?
The problem is that because we use NGB Quals most Wing SME’s aren’t able to deliver the actual training to Staff, they can give Staff the same experiences that they give the Cadets which can form the basis of a logbook and they can instruct them on what they need to do to get ready for a course.
But the member of staff does still need to go beyond that to get ready and especially in the outdoor world that means taking up the activity as a hobby to a greater or lesser extent.
It’s not like shooting where Wing Staff can directly deliver all of the training that is required before you go off to the SATT over a couple of weekends.
Correct.
But the hierarchy loves to make it out like we need loads of quals and training to deliver common sense.
I think it’s also important to keep in mind that what some people might consider “common sense” really isn’t that at all. It only seems obvious and easy to those who’ve been around the content and the style for some time.
A brand new instructor shouldn’t be expected to just crack on using their common sense - we do actually have a responsibility to properly prepare them for the role, and in many cases that means giving them the proper training that they deserve.
Going further than that we also have a responsibility to our cadets to provide the best training we can and in many cases that means requiring our instructors to reach an agreed standard. Though, by all means we should provide for graduated training and allocate responsibility according to level.
The old idea of just letting people read a book and get on with it does not work in at all in some cases, and is generally not the right way in most others.
Where we can definitely improve though is the way in which we assess and recognise existing knowledge, skills, experience and qualifications.
2 Likes
Agree with this. Allowing/utilising RPL is a significant gap in our organisation.
I’d like to put a sad face on this not a like!
Apart from what I assume was a joke response at the top I don’t think anyone would disagree with keeping this status quo.
Fair if that’s your experience, but the FCI course was around for years (as FTAI) and the ECO/FCI courses since then have required the bivvy building bit and depending on how they were/are delivered you would see other lessons. My experience is that trying to run staff training in a similar format to the cadet training hasn’t ever garnered interest and the best way to get new (to FT) staff involved is to have them along as exercise assistants where they do get to see lessons, then decide if they are happy as EAs or take it further - generally that has been the opportunity to engage with bringing someone in and up.
Following on from what I said above, the opportunities for those interested to get involved in the current system have always been there - much like AT. I think our WIng’s issue for splitting focus has been that FCOs have also been running units, but anyone who has wanted to could have gotten involved. I’ve run plenty of exercises with EAs who have then gone on to get qual’d. I also get repeat offenders who come along and are happy simply doing that role.
But yes, I agree that more could be done to inspire staff to get on board.
I have to say I disagree with this. Take some lessons and let people loose with them, maybe, but the amount of reeducation this would require from someone “picking up the book and teaching it” would become a waste of resources. We also need to consider training value and quality.
There’s a general misunderstanding about what the PAM actually is - it doesn’t really give you very much of the content to teach, just key points and lesson structure. We want people without the background in FT to get involved, but giving them the book and saying “have at it” ain’t it. If you’ve never applied cam cream before or even seen it done and heard a lesson, there’s a high chance that your session will have some farcical results (low training value).
I’m not really sure why this makes it an issue. You ignore the weapons references if you aren’t using weapons. The PAM gives lesson plans - I’ve often seen it encouraged for an instructor to produce their own and never known a problem with a slightly differently formatted lesson as long as the content and principles were still in place.
The same is true of FT and I’ve seen instructors who “did it for the sake of it” or were dragged through the process to become an AI/ECO/FCO and the results are the poor.
To a point, I agree. My issue is that we’re dealing with competency based skills and not just theory knowledge. A poorly taught and poorly coached skill just leaves cadets at a disadvantage later on and distracts resources into reeducation.
I’ve said above that I think we could drop the qual requirement for 1-3 with an instructor guide, which would allow units without instructors to sow the seeds of interest and free up time on day/weekend events. Might even help attract unqual’d staff to upskill.
Arguably there are other topics that could be taught without specialist FT knowledge - but judging distance without tying it into the context of target indication is “going for a walk and looking at some trees”. Many of the less fieldcrafty lessons without the context of the fieldcraft environment and the other tie-in lessons, or without applying them as part of a broader multi-skill CPT package is low-value and uninspiring.
What we don’t want to lose is the hook that gets most cadets onto their first exercises in the first place: “you get to roll around in the mud, hide in bushes, and sneak up on people” (or whatever). If at age 12 they were shown some trees and told “this is fieldcraft” that could be them right off the idea. If poorly taught and constructed CPT reduces “hiding in bushes and sneaking up on people” to its face-value proposition of a game of Hide and Seek in the park (seen it done) once a month there’s no progression and again you turn cadets off the better stuff.
This is all really interesting stuff.
As a cadet we managed some night ex’s and big ex’s on camps, but largely fieldcraft was running around a field with some badly applied cam cream.
What I see is missing from the fieldcraft Training Hub section is a flow chart of quals, what they involve, and the timelines.
I doubt any of it would be any good for me (I have a slight interest but only as we don’t offer this at all on squadron - I have lots of other hats so would rather someone else pick it up!), but I might have a few staff/staff cadets that would be interested in going down this route.
1 Like
don’t get me wrong, i am not saying FC isn’t done at all…in the four units I have been on within the wing the standard is 3-4 times a year FC is on the timetable.
this is typically getting some war make up on and walking around the woods with perhaps some cooking on a stove thrown in for good measure.
but it isn’t a subject anyone specialises in. even our Wg SMEs are more fanatical and interested than highly skilled. and i guess there lies the problem.
it isn’t a hobby that can be done outside of the ATC environment easily. Shooting, AT can be done as separate hobbies but doing some FC in the field behind the local Tesco would raise questions.
which means those with “real” experience tend to be ex-forces and in my experience they are either not interested, or wish to take it further than the Cadet experience allows (or because of the second take the first option!)
Those with most of an interest tends to be Cadet SNCOs rather than CFAVs and evenings are included in the training program but can’t say anyone does more than the basics…(but then if Cadets want that experience don’t they join the ACF?)
1 Like
Surely not if you’re doing it properly?
4 Likes
No light, no fire, cold beans for breakfast.
I work on the basis that we do ‘Aggressive Camping’ and practice as many skills from the Pam as we can over a weekend. For the majority of our cadets that is as far as they will ever get and so long as they enjoy it and go home to pull up a sandbag and swing the lantern with their parents/friends then job done.
For those that are really interested in going further then we rely on other courses as we don’t have the staff/motivation/skill set to run a more advanced weekend
2 Likes
This is among the greatest things I’ve ever seen…
2 Likes
I’m OC at a CCF unit and really enjoy the Field Craft element - we’re more Regiment orientated now!
I’ve been fortunate to get MQUAL and SAAI through the Army mob. I now have a strong core of the RAF Cadets who love rolling around in the mud. I try to get the cadets out as often as the calendar permits. Its occasionally a bit of a struggle to get it past the RAFAC TSA though.