Creating proper, non-leading, non-biased surveys is an art and a specialism all of its own I think! We’d need to get CFAVs in with specific experience of ‘proper’ survey design each time one was to be created.
7 Likes
Oh christ… @Moist_Van_Lipwig what have you done…
I dont want to have to do an course to be allowed to use MS Forms…
3 Likes
I actually thought the survey was quite good. I liked that it asked about AT quals as there’s currently no recognition of these being valuable for supervising deployed exercises.
I also liked that the survey asked about developing leadership, team work etc not just delivering FT lessons or always working towards FT with weapons.
I wasn’t too worried about the ‘levels’ questions. Apart from the very early lessons, fieldcraft is best delivered on training estate and I think Sqns should be cooperating to make best use of the training opportunity and instructors.
1 Like
I have no issue with levels - gives the Cadets something to aim at - just make sure they have the opportunity to take them
Delivery is skills/quals/experience/Suitable equipment based - if you have got it then deliver it - I dont care at what place in the structure it comes from so long as we don’t get prescriptive the other way and be told ‘you can’t do that you are not at Wg/Rgn level’
My cadets only ever do Level 1 stuff but so long as they come back from a greens weekend and can pull up a sandbag and swing the lantern to the others then job done - they have had a good time and done something different
2 Likes
I see the logic of that. But, there are people who are against Fieldcraft & greens more broadly. They are likely to push back.
I’ve not seen the survey but am an FCI. My 10 cents is that limiting to lessons 1-19 or 1-22 would be a shame. By all means have progression to ‘tactics’ at a higher level, maybe region (not just on JL) so Cadets can develop their skills.
Making it easier to deliver the basics on a Sqn would be a bonus. The barrier we have is not all Sqns have an FCI, and it’s seen (by some) as too difficult to get the qual.
We expect to see a real vast range of responses. Some will want under water knife fighting on the syllabus, others will expect us to deliver everything at a Region level and some will want to sit around making daisy chain hats. We’re okay with that and will sift the data.
I’m personally in agreement that limiting the syllabus would be a shame but we need to balance what we want alongside command risk management/appetite. The command board simply won’t allow an immediate release of the whole manual when no one has any expereince delivering it. We would have to prove we can do the basics as we have them now correctly and then consider adding more later if we can prove how they will add value to what the organisation wants from fieldcaft and provide a robust plan for instructor development to deliver it.
1 Like
I haven’t had access to the survey and only heard 2nd hand the contents but my only feedback would be I don’t care if its PTS or not… I like the structure (not the Badges though 
if badges come for this then no3 left blanking patch only please?)
As a CFAV I just want to deliver the syllabus as easily as possible as much locally where reasonably possible and with as little hoops to jump through to deliver it… I fully understand RTL and training quality assurance is key in this subject area
6 Likes
Agreed - and at the end of the day it is about a fun activity for the cadets - we are not trying to turn out a reserve infantry brigade
1 Like
IIRC Lessons 20 - 22 have to be taught by an ECO (ie someone who holds the SA(M)07 qualification). Lesson 20 is Individual Fire and Movement, Lesson 21 is Operating as a Member of a Fire-Team and Section, Lesson 22 is Issuing Fire Control Orders.
Limiting to Lesson 22 means that no Tactical work is taught which means that HQAC are putting an artificial limit on the SA(M)07 Qualification. I realise that they don’t want people setting light to Trg Areas or injuring people, but we are never going to do any Excercises at Company level. Indeed having discussed it with both my TSA and the local SATT, my view is that we would not need to go above Section Attack drills to be taught at Wing Level.
In the meantime I’ll keep excercising my Qualification with the ACF.
1 Like
IMHO, FC training & shooting would be best outsourced to the ACF. SCC can offer silver and gold gliding wings. RAFAC is best placed to deliver D&C, aeromodelling, aircraft rec & AT.
It’s about time the cadet forces came together to offer teenagers a tri-services cadet experience, esp. where they share the same footprint.
3 Likes
This is a wind up right?
It’s tongue in cheek, but it’s not inaccurate
3 Likes
Scc have easier access to royal navy gliding centres than we probably do with VGS
But this will turn this off topic
3 Likes
Sounds like a perfectly sensible approach.
Hopefully the outcome will be to make it both challenging and progressive whilst being something we can deliver. If it means going on a higher level course to - say - teach non defensive tactics, fair enough.
It does get a bit dull if the Cadets keep repeating the basic lessons though, as sometimes happens on camp or deployed exercises. If that could be done at Sqn level with some assurance it’s done properly, then when planning deployed exes we could move on to the next level more quickly.
Perhaps something on similar lines to Blue radio: anyone can teach with the official package, but assessors need to be approved (so an FCI).
1 Like
Based on a unit in our Wing, irs probably because the unit can provide more opportunities in the water than the organisation can offer 10% for the airborne opportunities
Is this likely? Or will units still run the weekends, and I make no apology for being controversial, for fun rather than for PTS development?
Are we as an organisation trying to meet our own standards and in doing so forgetting we can have fun and enjoy it too?
5 Likes
The problem is that it will end up being jacked for Wing Bronze purposes is the problem.
1 Like
Yes…
1 Like
Bumping this thread, please harass your units/commanders/fieldcraft officers to make sure they have completed the relevant survey.
Out of interest what’s the response rate looking like at the moment?