Yep, introductory sessions so that all staff have some awareness of all the core activities, dont have to be “qualified” in all areas, although personally I think all staff should be able to deliver core “blue” aviation stuff at the very least.
Where do you think I got the idea from 
I’ve had to go through all the training as a Cub Scout Leader.
If we lose 40-60+% of cadets it doesn’t matter how many staff we lose - those struggling sqns will be closing down anyway.
Yeah, having more training opportunities open to staff would be great. But how many QAIC / JL staff are willing to travel? Or will staff be expected to go to them? My QAIC location is a 2+hr drive, so that’s ~5hrs of driving in a day, plus the training.
We can’t do anything that involves residential stays, so we’re limited even further.
I’m all for coming up with some new ideas, but let’s make them practical. At the moment, they don’t seem to be.
As an ex-QAI from QAIC-South (sorry, Boscombe Down) I’d agree with you regarding space, but I’d wager a Staff Flight could be fit into the program.
True, all of this is ignoring the COVID-Elephant in the room.
That’s exactly my thought too.
My plan for the coming 18 months is to let some of the qualified staff I’ve got in my AOR look to resume cadet courses whilst I focus on training more staff along with some of the other more experienced instructors. I’m hoping that I can convince the Wing Training Officer that we should be doing this across the board with defined ‘trade’ pathways… Here’s an opportunity to deliver what I’ve been saying that Wing should be delivering for years. We’ll see how I get on.
Yeah, that’s going to be something that we all need to get to grips with. Short-term plans are going to be difficult with so much changing.
Here’s hoping that you can engage your SME CoC to do the same in an organised fashion in their Wings.
Fingers crossed. Hopefully with a successful process in my AOR they might see the benefits.
I would hope that Wings are taking a pragmatic approach to the return and going to use some time to bring their staff back up to speed, it’s certainly the approach I am seeing in my part of the world where staff are the focus initially.
The JL staff might not be best placed to run the FCI course, that course as a whole is due for review as each Wing implements it in their own way which is not a wise route for HQAC and their compliance with the SST. A re-written course folder that is delivered via Regional assets at a large scale would probably be the most efficient route and provide some standardisation/assurance along the way.
I think what we also ought to be doing far more is looking across to see how the other cadet forces are going about it. Taking away their good ideas and learning from their mistakes as well as our own.
this conversation has come a long way from the comment that “Ultilearn slides are poor and assume the instructor knows the subject”
yes Staff should be knowledgeable in the classification subjects, so why not offer training?
I am a BEL holder, engineer by qualification and profession and private pilot, i’d like to think i can work my way through a good majority of what we teach - but i know my experience is not typical.
why not, and this isn’t a new idea as my wing tried it, have “train the trainer” sessions.
these were once held at Wing/suitable Squadron but seems easily transferable to Teams/VPN format.
as for anything above and beyond Sqn level training (ie classfification) a “quota” per Wing won’t work, if Staff are interesting in Drill, they do a DI course, likewise for shooting they go to their SATT, then there are the “softer” skills, like Radio and first aid, joining the Wing team to teach that way.
my point being if Staff want training, there are ways and means to get it, I don’t think setting aside Cadet Training or making Staff places on Cadet courses is an appealing option.
why not make the opportunities more available to more people?
I know i am yet to meet a Wing SME who has yet to say they won’t visit a Squadron and talk about their area to aid how it is delivered on Squadron
Defo.
Especially if run at wing level to reduce burden on Sqns 
Do you understand the requirements to become trainers in some of these areas when you give such a broad statement?
Yes. Thanks.
Rekon you win the award for most patronising tonight. Thanks.
If a wing cant even have its wing staff as trainers that seems utterly pointless. Else how does the Sme even know the full ins and outs of their subject.
Now I’m not saying AT Officer has to be competent at every AT event, that’s stupid. But ideally in the one the wing uses most.
So either walking, canoeing, cycling or climbing I would have thought.
Especially when we add totally unnecessary layers of none-sense to those requirements! But we’ve had that conversation already…
So you realise that to deliver entry level qualifications in walking for example requires you to:
Hold an ML
Shadow 6 lowland leader courses
Apply to mountain training, have a hefty logbook and then become a course director after attending an induction, and complete a probation year delivering a specified number of courses.
For paddlesport instructor, you need to hold at least a moderate water leader award, have qualifications in canoe, kayak & SUP and apply to British Canoeing and attend an orientation, then complete an action plan over the following year.
How many of our WATTOs do you think have the requisite experience to do that lot? And are multi-skilled enough to be able to provide them all? But you want the SMEs to all be trainers…
You clearly don’t understand some of the requirements otherwise you wouldn’t have suggested it. There are also limitations on number of course directors based on our ability to deliver viable courses and maintain a reputation as a provider with Mountain Training.
What do we add to the NGB requirements to become trainers?
Wing Shooting & WATTOs excepted I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Wing SMEs to train interested staff and develop them into SQEPs so that when they move on their is a long list of viable candidates, to me this forms a key part of People Pipeline and is part of succession planning. (Even Shooting and AT can help to develop SQEPs)
For WFTOs it’s in their TOR iirc to deliver FCI courses / oversee.
Radio/Cyber is all internal to Bronze.
Wg DofE have all been course tutors or delivered courses with support from RSOs.
Ironically aviation is where we let ourselves down as the Sqn Ldr (paid) is a glorified accountant allocating spaces they are given from the RAvnO (Wg Cdr (Paid)). To me this is where we have the rank to show importance to the organisation but not the output.
I think AT, a bit like the aviation side, is a bit unwieldy for a single person… I don’t think the expectation that your wing SME actually being an SME is unreasonable.
For aviation we seem to have recently broken it down into two parts;
Aerospace; dealing with PTT and other ground based aviation training.
Flying; dealing with all things physically airborne, scholarships, sqn allocation etc.
Which seems entirely sensible.
So why not do the same with AT? Break it down into water sports, d of e (which should cover LL/ML) etc etc.
If the job is too big for one person to have experience in the field and be able to train their staff then it needs breaking down surely?
Not just telling those that might want to break through into one or other that you can’t help.
Not at all, and I entirely agree. SMEs have a fundamental task in developing the interest and enthusiasm in staff. But they cannot all be trainers, particularly in the shooting & AT world.
It annoys me when people make blanket statements about things that they only have a peripheral understanding of.
Yes and no, I have an AT panel who are all effectively deputies who each specialise in an area, except paddling as we don’t have any paddlers so it sits with me. (Setting this up was my first act on becoming a WATTO).
There are however limits to how much you can break it down, you still need an individual with responsibility for development and strategy, the panel for me are my in-house experts that I can go to in the areas where I’m not as experienced. You also only have limited Staff so you cant make the whole AT Panel full time Wing roles and the big thing from where I sit is that the person authoring activities needs to have the necessary time to examine applications properly. Which you may not have if you have multiple roles. (I currently have 3 but am moving away from my Command for this very reason).
This is one of my major irritations, there is more to Trekking than DofE and there is a lot more to DofE than just Expeditions.