I put some comments in the text box, yes.
I am aware that if one complains too loudly, or points out too many flaws to the instigator, you’re pretty much dismissed as a crank, and your comments discounted. It’s why ACC is often used as a way for us to get stuff off our chest.
Maybe I’m being naïve but is it possible that the intent is to make things better and easier? If the author wanted to force you to say “deliver at Wg”, would they have included “Sqn” as an option?
Yes, I started the survey then gave up too but emailed the originator to say ‘thanks for including the CCF but…’
The CCF needs to be able to continue to work jointly with our Army sections and to be able to conduct Contingent-level training under Army rules approved by the Army TSA, which we can do at the moment because the TAF has the concept of an ‘Army-led’ activity. This should not be replaced with a RAFAC approach which doesn’t really apply in the CCF context. And most CCFs have plenty of regular and reserve Army experience to keep them safe (I appreciate not always true especially in CEP).
If the author conceived that we might want everything delivered at sqn, why did they include:
“Thinking about the activities you said should be delivered at Wing Level…”
“Thinking about the activities you said should be delivered at Region Level…”
“Thinking about the activities you said should be delivered at Corps Level…”
and not have an option to put “N/A”, or "I don’t think activities should be delivered at XXXX level?
Possibly.
But we have had similar questionnaires about other areas over the last few years and the overwhelming view of frontline CFAVs was ignored each time.
If HQAC want to set the FT syllabus in a PTS framework. That’s fine.
But every level blue to gold should be deliverable at every formation level, Sqn - corps.
The only restriction on delivery should be whether the formstion has qualified staff to deliver that level.
BUT that does not mean the creation of some new fictional instructor quals like ‘bronze FT inst’ because we already have quals in FCIs, SAAIs and individuals with M qual.
Current FCIs should be able to deliver the whole FT PTS. The only proviso being anything with weapons is delivered under the SST by SAAIs. But that’s as it is now anyway.
Overnight exercises and ‘deployed’ exercises, can be run by FCIs as now.
No need to reinvent or make more complex what we already have.
If all that is wanted is a shiny PDF with a PTS syllabus in it and some badges for banking plates then that’s fine by me.
Just dont fudge up the opportunity for the cadets who currently have high quality FT delivered regularly and safely.
That is all.
1000%, unequivocally, yes.
There is no requirement for an SAAI to instruct fieldcraft with the rifle. Only SAA periods (e.g. IWT) need be delivered by a competent instructor.
The 2 usually have to go together though…
Dependant on WHT currency etc.
Okay, this thread is gathering pace and I think some truth needs adding in here… i’m quite close to this project so can give you the answers.
There is no agenda, we want opinions on what people think.
The questions were written by a panel of people and there is no agenda about their phrasing, it is just what people thought would gather the best information for us to look at how fieldcraft in the org should go.
We will at some point also be asking Cadets.
Yes a report will be published in to the findings and reccomendations.
There is no intention to limit what is delivered locally, generally the thought process is to enable at the lowest level to be honest.
A chunk of the project team are having a good laugh at the comments in here.
I’m thinking a Regional HQ has adopted ACC profiles enmasse.
Welcome.
It’s a HQAC project team working on the fieldcraft review made up of people from across the org, various RHQs, HQAC perm staff, TSAs, TDT, SATTs, JL.
Thanks for breaking cover.
But, no offence meant, If what you say is true, then the question writer needs sacking…
People were doing their best to help gather data that can be assessed as easily as possible considering the volume of data we expect.
I don’t think you can chastise a CFAV for doing the best they can within their ability to try and help the organisation better itself.
I wonder why FCI’s weren’t asked?
I’ve not seen the questions apart from what I’ve seen on here but:
Well said. In almost all contexts I will agree with this.
We will be able to filter the results based on the questions on qualifications held.
We’re looking for opinion on wider organisation want/need and not necessarily a fieldcraft persons view on where fieldcraft should go.
I’m sure the CFAV had the best of intentions, and I applaud them for their enthusiasm.
But, as is alluded to above, the questions that went out appeared to be loaded in the favour of a syllabus to be delivered at four different levels. I certainly got that impression, and it sounds like others did too. Hence the concerns.
Plus it sounds like it went out to the CCF bods, who do FT differently.
I’m all for empowering volunteers, and allowing peoples opinions to shape future policy, but did RHQs, HQAC, and the TSAs not spot the flaws with the questions?
It did, they are specifically being asked to be included at a HQ level and have representation of sorts on the team.
I can see why that would be thought and there is no doubt an unconcious bias to follow the already established syllabus framework of 4 different levels. There is no bias in cordoning off levels to be delivered in certain places though at the moment. That may change as things develop and depending on the responses received but I assure you the aim is to make things easier not harder while getting back some semblance of safe system control over instructor competency.
There was plenty of oppurtunity for the representatives from the various areas to review the questions and no one raised any concerns over them.
Well, I hope that is the case.
Perhaps we need a PTS in creating surveys… 
With the availability of forms as a tool to gather data we may not have been able to with surveymonkey or similar it could be an option to explore training.