I’m sceptical of this. The test deliberately allows a number of errors on each part, so long as none affect safety. It’s not pedantry if a cadet makes three non-safety errors in a single drill and therefore fails the test - it shows they simply don’t know the drill. The cadet’s aren’t going to fail if they miss a tap forward or can’t answer a cleaning question - but if they show multiple (generally 3 or more) errors/lack of knowledge in one area it’s right that they should receive remedial training.
Actually I thought the test was naff, and to get retested all the time on a weapon system I used constantly, was more of a tick in a box than actual quality training. I would rather have spent that time going over the WHT, on actual training, dry training or range work. It was always the same situation for the test. It was always a token tick to get it done with just to get to actual useful quality training.
It was only good for a skive to sit around with a cup of tea while you wait your turn though.
The only time it came in handy was for a system I hadn’t used in a while and even then it was just a tick in a box to get to the actual training.
Plus regular ranges, especially for combat units allowed a bit more trust and initiative with the weapon systems. In cadet ranges there’s more safety staff than shooters so it’s easy to spot small mistakes.
Mistakes that wouldn’t necessary fail a WHT, and if a cadet does do something safety critical it’s easier to see and pull them off to retest. It’s not like your cracking CQB ranges or have a GPMG covering your section attack.
How so? The recommended minimum ratio for inexperienced firers is 1:3 now 1:1 is ideal as allows for coaching but isn’t the norm
Still going to spot it with that number. Minor mistakes can easily be rectified on the firing points. Any safety critical can be dealt with according. No different to them being WHTd a million times or once.
Funny how I had to be tested constantly for a weapons system I used daily, on Operations and otherwise, had slept with and knew inside and out, yet someone can pass a HGV test years ago, never touch a truck but then suddenly jump one truck, and end up slotting someone.
If that’s the way they want to do it, fair play, just uses more resources and increased admin and puts another hoop in an already declining activity. I am genuinely surprised the HSE nutjobs haven’t kicked their granola over with their knee-jerks anyway.
In my (limited, admittedly) experience, ATC shoots tend to have very high staff levels, while CCF (all colours) tend towards the lowest allowable. But that number keeps creeping up: the RCO isn’t included in that 1:3 ratio, nor is the ammo NCO, not is the first-aider. So for a six-lane range that is still five staff. When I started running indoor ranges back in ?2004 it was common to run our eight-lane range with two staff (RCO + SS, SS was also the first-aider) and a senior cadet to handle the ammo.
On a short range yes, a Long range you could easily have 12 lanes in use giving you;
4 Safety Supervisors (maybe less if a higher ratio)
1 First Aider
1 Ammo NCO
The first aider & ammo NCO may have no shooting experience just be able to put a plaster on and count.
You also then have the cadets who are waiting to fire, so while the over all ratio is less than 1:10 for other activities, it doesn’t need to be as high as some think.
You’ll also find that staff who shoot, will come to most shoots which does keep the ratio high.
Remember that we would now aim to have your 4 supervisors replaced by 12 coaches to optimise the cadet’s shooting experience!
But a coach does not need to be a CFAV or authorised to act in such a capacity.
To be fair, I was in charge of ammo on a range last week and watched 3 x NCOs from IFPT at Halton deliver the best coaching I’ve ever seen. 4 lanes so nearly 1:1 and much better than I could have done. I know it’s their job…