I should have specified “local trg” outside the existing SAAI remit / testing. In other words, only have the WHT system in effect fur L98, etc.
But don’t you get a sense that this has been happening for several years across the board, with someone with a day job or worse a volunteer with a role to justify coming up with something and leaving us with it to deal with in our spare time?
In this instance the SASC are the Germans and HQAC the Vichy French.
1 Like
unfortunately when this system was in place (the “good old days” when we were Cadets) there were “near misses” and restrictions were put in place to mitigate it reoccurring.
hazards identified that CFAVs were not suitably “qualified” and so the need for tickets to be gained began.
As mean as it is to say it, it is us (CFAVs) that let the side down at some point which has caused the need to put control measures in place to reduce the hazards…
just be YOU had no trouble doesn’t mean 123 Sqn at the end of the Wing/in the next Region didn’t have a trouble free time…and it is easier to offer a nationwide rule than local rules/restrictions because someone messed up and can’t be trusted
But it’s gone from sensible to ridiculous in one go and as a result fewer people willing to be qualified and therefore fewer cadets shooting. I enjoyed shooting but would I go back to it, no chance.
The level of ‘qualification’ is fine for a real job, but for a hobby and time pressure it puts on people is far from fine. Yes people volunteer to do it and accept that demand on their time for the training but unless it is something they really, really want to do they will soon lose interest.
I really don’t buy this time pressure argument. Yes, the initial course (whether it be RCO or SAAI) is intensive and time consuming. But after that, it’s not. I invested two weekends for my RCO five years ago, and as a result, with minimal effort or outlay of time, I keep my currency and deliver shooting to cadets. Any of this ‘effort’ to keep currency is fictitious, because as someone who delivers the activity to cadets, when it’s time for re-assessment, someone comes to see me delivering the activity in the same way I would be anyway.
As for paperwork, again, initially time consuming, but once you have a template for the shoots etc you need, there’s little time required to jack up the next activity.
The time pressure argument is based on the requirement to deliver to other squadrons, which we have to ask for and quite obviously it is difficult to get someone else to agree to it as they have their own lives. If some bright spark hadn’t collected all our .303 DPs a few years ago I could still teach .22 like I did and just get someone else to test them. What’s the worse they could do, give me a rollicking or have a damn good finger wag.
Not being funny you can just instruct to the test.
What does that achieve?
The cadet neither has the skills to achieve with the rifle, as Marksmanship Principles form 2 lessons for the L98A2 nor the skills to facilitate a smooth running range.
I run sector weapons training, at a squadron that has an indoor range. Over the course of the weekend 20 cadets will be trained on the No.8 & complete CLF1. 10 Cadets will be trained on the L98A2. More can be trained on the L98A2 if additional SAAI assist.
No.
I think that we have regulations for the sake of safety and standards - quite often they’re not ideal for us (particularly when handed down from military sources, where they don’t really fit) but just muddling along and assuming that everything will be fine is much further from ideal.
I don’t get how we in the ATC had our own regulations for many years without a succession of incidents that would suggest something is wrong and we need to be more tightly controlled. This is why I see it as fiddling by people in the armed forces more so since c.2010 after the GE (we have seen most interference by the ‘regular’ forces since this date) to ensure that the CF can help perpetuate their reason for being. I can imagine when numbers are cut in the regulars as they have been another 40000 - 50000 bodies comes as a bonus to people facing losing jobs/depts. which has a massive ripple effect across all ranks in the forces, when previously it would have been an embuggerance.
I’m not saying things didn’t happen when we effectively self-regulated and may be plagiarised things, but when you do as many things as much as we do, then to not have something happen would be bizarre. I don’t recall many nationally advised incidents over my time in the Corps as staff.
Gosh! Lots of initials and service acronyms, but everyone seem to be missing the point.
The Daily Mail.
“Cadet Badly Injured by Rifle” makes a great headline, especially if followed by the revelation that the instructor has not been trained for some years. The public do not understand firearms and consider them evil gangster things.
“Cadet Badly Injured in Road Accident” does NOT make a national headline. The public (think they) understand motor vehicles and, as they passed their own test thirty seven years ago and “know” they are excellent drivers who do not need re-testing, they will not expect any recurrent tests. You would have to kill at least four people to make the news.
A lot of our recurrent training is (and here are my acronyms) a TCIC for HQAC
1 Like
I don’t agree with the paperwork issue. One RAM and a set of conducting notes, an arms and ammo request, a short bader app and a 3822 check is all that is really required. Compare that with AT where you need ToPL, Risk Assessments, Applications, Maps, Plans, Emergency Action Sheets, Route Cards etc etc I think we get off lightly in the shooting world; all due to the Safe System of Training.
If a SST was applied to all activities in the way of shooting we could cut instantly the amount of paperwork required to run an activity by answering the basic points: Safe Place, Safe Person, Safe Activity, Safe Equipment.
I do, & I’m not the only one.
RAM = possibly repetitive for same location, but “blanket” RAM for same RCO / personnel / CLF activity is not permitted. Cadet names must be added to Bader - will they turn up? What about additional cadets who turn up as available for the shoot, are WHT’d, but not listed on Bader? FA-qual’d CFAV as per authority for event is not available, but alternative FA-qual’d CFAV is in attendance - technically, no change to cadets or FA-qual’d CFAV. Shooting event cancelled. For air rifle in particular, this is over-kill (pardon the pun). Scouts, turn up, shoot.
For say 1.5 hrs on the range, it equates to 1.5 hrs of pre-auth admin & post-shooting Bader entries / admin. The tail is wagging the dog.
Incidentally, Bader has not been up-dated to show CLF gradings, it still shows Sqn / Wg / Region / Corps marksman…
One extra point - the current system does not allow a “try it & see” option. A cadet has to undergo the full trg & WHT route before live firing. Some cadets then struggle or do not like the specific rifle. This is a waste of time & effort all round. I suggest that there should be a one to one supervisory opportunity where a cadet could try out the rifle concerned & see how it goes for them. There would be no pressure “must pass WHT” atmosphere. If they like it, great. Proceed to full trg + WHT. Same for camps - one to one supervision - get more cadets shooting from the outset & then move forwards.
1 Like
No. It’s annual weapons testing.
But how long is the WHT valid for?
You can update the list of cadets on SMS on the day or after the event, with the recent update to SMS it can now be easily accessed via a smartphone. Given that SMS currently gives the organising no relevant information WRT shooting it shouldn’t be an issue so long as it shows whose attending.
If your designated First Aider doesn’t attend, you hand amend the RAM for an suitably qualified CFAV and inform the SPO iaw CTR 17.
[quote=“XN150, post:31, topic:3099, full:true”]
The Daily Mail.
“Cadet Badly Injured by Rifle” makes a great headline, especially if followed by the revelation that the instructor has not been trained for some years. The public do not understand firearms and consider them evil gangster things.
“Cadet Badly Injured in Road Accident” does NOT make a national headline. The public (think they) understand motor vehicles and, as they passed their own test thirty seven years ago and “know” they are excellent drivers who do not need re-testing, they will not expect any recurrent tests. You would have to kill at least four people to make the news.[/quote]
My word you really have swallowed the Corps’ flat spin pill.
It is worth remembering that it is not the rifle that injures someone, it is the someone using the rifle. That person could be trained or not. How many of the firearms incidents in the news are carried out by someone who has been trained and tested (every 6 months) on the weapon?
What documentary evidence is there that in the ATC, prior to the nonsense around shooting that exists now, of major incidents in the news.
The fact nothing major happens IMO demonstrates we worked safely and at a time when shooting was a major activity for the vast majority of the Corps, so statistically greater probability of an accident. Now that shooting has become a much reduced activity you can expect statistically that there will be even fewer incidents.
One of the only incidents involving a firearm and direct link to the ATC I can recall is when the young bloke shot at The Queen with a starting pistol(?) and it was reported that at some point been in the ATC.
1 Like
This could be a major advertising opportunity for ‘open door events’ if you have air rifles. I know someone who asked and was told no and the usual fluff and bluster around training. I’ve been to numerous events and the local scouts have had air rifles out using little more than a gazebo and back boards and had youngsters of all ages shooting them.
As you say if a cadet tries and can’t get on with it, saves a load of aggro training and testing them for something that they have no interest or aptitude.
Good point for the cadets. However, I believe that once an activity on SMS is approved, it’s not possible to amend staff.
No, I certainly don’t agree with allowing the Daily Mail to direct matters, but I am realistic enough to accept that is how our society is run. The real problem is that no politician is prepared to exert any control on the press as it may cost him the next election.
Fake (or at least uninformed, wildly inaccurate, or out of date) “news” is there all the time, being quoted by “reputable news sources” mostly to sell papers, increase viewers or get votes.
I could mention Panorama.