RAM to RSD? Process on SMS for approvals

Mike Jenvey may have bit - but speaks the truth!

1 Like

Weapons regardless of calibre, or action are there to hurt or injury if not controlled correctly and in a safe manner.

Why would you want to relax the safety rules for a risk to life activity? Are you mad, or just like cutting corners? Sounds a little chip-shop to me.

SPO’s are made aware that they are to be available for the PO/RCO, they may have jobs but that is a requirement of the post.

Simples the scouts don’t fire under military regs.

@MikeJenvey out of all this it boils down to, we as an organisation fully support and adopt military firing regulations which take a firer through life training - not only on the operation of weapon to hand but the range running with the safety rules surrounding that operation. Our ranges are run the same as regular/reserve ranges, if you want to fire civilian rules then go there and fire civilian rules, our rules were there before us and will be there after us - many people with much bigger pay packets and experience than you or I decide these things.

Sorry, it seems that you are part of the problem, not a part of any solution to enhance shooting opportunities.

I don’t know how long you have been shooting or associated experience, but I’'ll add my story - I was OIC Shooting for numerous RAF bases (onwards from 1981), Strike Cmd Shooting Sec (ran a multi-£m budget for allocated ammo), shot at Service Wpn competitions at Bisley, & was also a military RCO. I won’t bother you with my national RCO instructor / coach qualifications in the NRA - the equivalent would be to say that I could qualify a SATT instructor (or higher). I regularly shoot .22 indoors (something that I haven’t managed to do with RAFAC for about 4+ yrs - the cr@p replacement rifle we have might as well be made of diamonds, haven’t seen one yet), I’ve shot for RAF / England with 7.62 tgt rifle & I’m a County Shooting Sec. So, I think I can say I have extensive military / civilian experience / qualifications. I spent best part of a year lobbying the Lords (numerous visits) for changes to primary legislation (partially successful), & caused the Head of Home Office Firearms to get an official caning for disregarding their release of information procedures. I am not frightened to take on the system if positive changes can be made.

Back to air rifle shooting - if you think that having an adult issuing air rifle pellets makes anything “safer” or having your first aider 5m away from the range is dangerous, then you are very much mistaken (& inflexible) - & also don’t seem to have the commons sense to see how much this loads up a shooting detail.

I am well aware how the regulations sit - but at least I have tried extensively in the past (& will continue to do so) to make them realistic & appropriate for what cadets do. Air rifles have had a large surge in use in the last few years; the basic rules / requirements for their use (old spring / fold up actions) were antiquated. It’s a crying shame that the mantra of “we’ve always done it that way” continues to be shouted from the Ivory Towers.


Interesting that you say that, as we are all about electronic signatures round here. The only time I have to physically sign something is the F016 MMA form.

We can do electronic signature on SMS… but seems some RAU want to see the RSD signed in front of them.

If only eRASP had worked :man_shrugging:

Indeed, the SASC have said digital signature is fine. DIO are now also working towards digital signature although there are some still being daft.

ERASP will be back eventually.

No they don’t…

It seems to me Mike, that this poster falls into one of 3 categories:

  1. a newly-qualified RCO who has swallowed the rulebook.

  2. ex-SASC, possibly with a role within the ivory towers and who hasn’t yet grasped that CFAV’s are not regular or reserve personal and who actually have real jobs that pay their mortgages.

  3. a troll.


What Planet are you living on Brooke_Bond? obviously you are not parading at a Sqn regularly, if you did then you would understand the comment made by MikeJenvey which is totally reasonable.


In some respects the RSD is better than the RAM since you don’t have to append Conducting Notes but can have a set of standardised notes for each CLF (in much they way they were added as an Annex to the RAM a few years ago).

In other respects it’s not as good becuse it spoon feeds meaning RCOs will fail to fully consider the Due Planning Proces. For eg the RSD mentions Range Incursions; pray tell me how you are going to get an aircraft or ship incursion into an indoor range?

Additionally it is more work for the SPO. As Mike said above, now that the SPO has to sign off the RSD it has to be sent to him/her well ahead of the shoot. If SASC think that SPOs are going to go running around Wgs just to sign off RSDs (or posting them back and foth at their own expense) , then they have no concept of the fact that CFAVs have lives outside of cadet work. Fortunately the SATTS appear to have got on board with electronic signatures.

While I accept that air rifle shooting is to be run the same way as small bore and full bore, such that the cadet can get their head around military range work right from the start, some of the strictures in place seem a little OTT.

Now, can you tell me where shotguns fall into this super safe system of ours…