is a more centralised (wing led) approach to shooting a bad thing though? With the restrictions on movement of wpns/ammo and the apparant shortage of qualified staff surely WShOs should be looking to provide a centralised calendar of activities to cadets and adults in their respective wings? Making the most of the range bookings/qualified staff/busy calendar by running centralised training/camps/courses/range days rather than leaving it up to units to arrange? If your WShO isn’t doing this then why?
No argument that we need to centralise, though I walways liked the model that units / sectors delivered basic training (eg No 8) and Wing did the higher level L98 and L81 stuff.
However, if a wing has only a handful of WI or SAAI qualified staff, how can they ever provide opportunities to an entire wing?
We used to be able to, because a small contingent of qcWHTs could back up the smaller number of instructors. Now, that handful have to both train and test, and the number that can be dealt with is substantially reduced.
The result is we can no longer offer this as an opportunity to every cadet. It simply is not feasible.
MW
depends what you class as a handful.
we have over the last 24 months worked with 4/5 WI/SAAI delivering IWT and LFMT every month minus 3 in all of that time.
the demand has been high in each case, most months one aspect if not more oversubscribed (minus one of those months were it was too low to justify the effort required)
some of those WI/SAAI are also RCOs and run the LFMT section.
the weekend is in the format of
Saturday
No 8 IWT
No8 LFMT
L98A2 IWT pt1
Sunday
L98A2 IWT pt2
L98A2 LFMT
we have operated like that with a small team of 5 or so starting off initially as 3 Squadrons together then gaining interest it grew up to 12 before the WSOs realized we were doing a better job of it than most and allowed us to offer to weekends to the Wing.
we are only a small team but have trained in excess of 250 Cadets in that time, had 355 shooting places taken up and fired over 16000 rounds.
i do sympathise with those Squadrons and Wings without any shooting infrastructure but 4 years ago i was one of you. no range, no weapons, no qualified staff.
i got my SAAI and got together with other Staff to set up some weekends, this grew and is now operating in lieu of the “Monthly Wing Shoots” i recall attending as a many many moons ago.
of course all of the above is off topic.
i think it is a shame these courses wont be available on the weekends. we (CFAVs) are in essence “weekend warriors” to a degree and so feel as that is when we are available we should be able to commit to events during that time.
Looks all good Steve, but not so long ago nigh on a 1000 cdts per Wing would be qualified and shooting regularly as nearly every sqn had at least one member of staff able to do it.
Having 250 cadets trained is OK but represents only a quarter or so of the potential. But even keeping 250 current on all types is a task in itself under the current regime.
Whether the courses are a week or weekend they need to fit our purpose and going to a one size fits all has put an ernormous amount of pressure, on a very few members of staff, not only to do the work but also to keep current on each weapon. As MW has said losing the qcWHT has stuffed shooting right up, whether or not SASC liked it, is irrelevant as it worked for us.
If our Corps shooting managers (for want of a word) had the slightest incling or sat and thought what the ramifications of the changes would mean, gave a stuff and fought out corner, then we might not be in the general situation we are wrt shooting across the Corps. All of the rules we have now are designed around regulars (and probably reserves) who are able to be tested etc as and when required as part of their day to day routine. Just like many of us undertaking any regular tests, courses etc we are obliged to by our employers.
You do realise that this change hasn’t come from the ACO don’t you? It’s a requirement from higher than that, the SASC…
Remember that shooting in every branch of the Forces and all Cadet units, is owned by the Army. They make the policy at (I think) 2* or 3* level and cascade that down, so we as the ACO, don’t have much (if any) say in what that policy is.
For once, its not about HQAC or CTT or the SATT’s screwing people around or inventing their own policy designed to make our lives harder. They get told what the policy is or is going to be and told to implement it through ACO publications such as ACTO’s. No if’s, buts, why’s or wherefore’s. It’s a case of JFDI.
So, we either abide by that policy and the ball-ache that goes with it or shooting stops across the whole of the ACO.
As for the phasing-out of the qCWHT and potentially, the WI© quals, that to me is very much in-line with civilian qualifications. Those on here who have a training\teaching background will know that each qualification has a set ‘life’ after which it must be reviewed and updated, normally under a slightly different title. Why should the cadet world be any different?
while its entirely true that this not something the ACO gets to choose whether it likes or not, the ACO, and the other cadet forces, and indeed the reserves, have the capability to wage a political campaign to change the rules.
why no obviously leaked article in the Torygraph about how the pasty-killers of the SASC are destroying shooting for 80,000-odd cadets of all services because they don’t want to work weekends?
we all know that everyone else mounts these campaigns - every time theres the whiff of defence cuts the Daily Fail is full of stories - planted - that the RAF will have to scrap the Red Arrows, the Army will scrap the Guards Regiments, and the RN will have to dig up Nelson and flog him for pet food. so why not the ACO - and its countless alumni both within the senior ranks of the RAF and in wider defence?
I’d lay money on the reasons they wouldn’t campaign as being:
-
the Guardianistas and the readers of the Indypedant would be up in arms (no pun intended) about the cadet forces training children to fire full-bore weaponry. So there’s a potential for political backlash from the ‘you’re-training-child-warriors’ section of society.
-
All our senior masters are retired RAF and they a) don’t buck systems and b) they want to protect their pensions.
In my experience within the ACO, balls are not necessarily something any of our masters have grown and I’ve seen precious little evidence of anyone in the ivory towers having them. It’s easier to go along with what they’ve been told to do rather than fight against it.
[quote=“Gunner” post=21832] All our senior masters are retired RAF and they a) don’t buck systems and b) they want to protect their pensions
In my experience within the ACO, balls are not necessarily something any of our masters have grown and I’ve seen precious little evidence of anyone in the ivory towers having them. It’s easier to go along with what they’ve been told to do rather than fight against it.[/quote]
And herein lies the problem.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=21834][quote=“Gunner” post=21832] All our senior masters are retired RAF and they a) don’t buck systems and b) they want to protect their pensions
In my experience within the ACO, balls are not necessarily something any of our masters have grown and I’ve seen precious little evidence of anyone in the ivory towers having them. It’s easier to go along with what they’ve been told to do rather than fight against it.[/quote]
And herein lies the problem.[/quote]
yeah, the last few CAC/AOC’s haven’t exactly been steely-eyed dealers of death have they…?
Moulds had a bit of backbone, but you can’t imagine any of the others (to quote Mark and Lard: wwwwhhhhoooooooooooo??..) ringing up CAS and giving it both barrels about whatever new paralysis/idiocy the MOD have inflicted on the ACO.
Hang on a tick, I think you going a bit far here. Having to do the course during the week is not going to destroy shooting. The ACF and CCF (Army) have had to do the course during the week for as long as I can remember, and it hasn’t destroyed shooting. Lack of ranges doesn’t help though…
As long as the courses are available and actually run, there shouldn’t be an issue.
I think it is important for these courses to be run as regularly and accessibly as possible. If we can’t get new blood into the activity to take over the training and the ranges, how will I ever be able to shred my F7257 and tell the ACO precisely where they can insert it?
Quite so - BUT the emphasis for the ACF has always had shooting as a high priority integral element, & with the added bonus that ex-Army staff who move to the ACO can probably can transfer shooting qualifications across? Also, the ACF seem to coordinate requirements for instructors as a “package” so that trg pre-equisites are done & dusted before the instructor arrives on ACF unit - or at the very least, soon after. Also, with shooting as a stronger element with the ACF, I suspect that there are (a) far more instructors interested in shooting & (b) the CTC availability for SAAI cses would seem to be immensely better that the regional set-up used by the ACO. Consequently, to get a confirmed placement would probably have been much easier within the ACF = no concerns about “wasting” valuable leave.
As I said previously, I suspect that if a CTC cse is promulgated, it will run. This has not always been the case with the ACO, & with limited availability = potential problems with getting a confirmed placement. Vicious circle - can’t book leave until I get a placement, can’t get a placement until I book leave, & notification of non-placement = too late to cancel leave. This paradox will have to change in order to minimise inconvenience to applicants.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21842]
Quite so - BUT the emphasis for the ACF has always had shooting as a high priority integral element, & with the added bonus that ex-Army staff who move to the ACO can probably can transfer shooting qualifications across? Also, the ACF seem to coordinate requirements for instructors as a “package” so that trg pre-equisites are done & dusted before the instructor arrives on ACF unit - or at the very least, soon after.[/quote]
It is actually quite rare to get ex-Army staff with the appropriate quals to transfer over. I think we have 1 in our company. How training currently works is an instructor turns up at the detachment and watches for a bit while they complete their initial training at weekends and odd evenings - this takes several months. They there is then more intermediate training and assessment (again, several months worth) before they do away for their Advanced Induction Course, which is a week long course run by the Cadet Training Teams. This is usually 12 months or so after they joined. After this they can go on to do skill at arms or range courses.
It seems to me the main issue is the organisation of the courses themelves.
FYI the dates of the our courses are now as follows:
11-16 Jan
18-22 Jan*
08-13 Feb
15-20 Feb
22-27 Feb*
15-20 Mar*
19-24 Apr*
03-08 May
10-15 May*
14-19 Jun
21-26 Jun*
20-25 Sept
04-09 Oct*
04-09 Oct*
Those with an asterisk (*) are external courses, not held at Frimley Park. I am aware that the last two dates are the same, they are in different locations across the UK.
This is great news. Means I can actually attend one!
[quote=“noah claypole” post=21807]
Again I completely agree, but I must admit that I can’t help thinking that there could be an SAAI ‘lite’ course (i.e. only allows the provision of WHT’s) - otherwise I can’t understand why the WI© course qual still remains valid?[/quote]I don’t believe SASC would be too keen. The SAAI cse doesn’t actually cover WHTs in any great detail, but merely a talk or perhaps demo of an ideal one, and a discussion of do’s and dont’s. I think this is because being able to conduct a WHT on the L98/LSW requires a thorough knowledge of the drills that only SAAI© can give you. I suspect SAAI lite is not going to happen for that reason.
Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa… !!!
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21842][T]he emphasis for the ACF has always had shooting as a high priority integral element, & with the added bonus that ex-Army staff who move to the ACO can probably can transfer shooting qualifications across? Also, the ACF seem to coordinate requirements for instructors as a “package” so that trg pre-equisites are done & dusted before the instructor arrives on ACF unit - or at the very least, soon after. Also, with shooting as a stronger element with the ACF, I suspect that there are (a) far more instructors interested in shooting & (b) the CTC availability for SAAI cses would seem to be immensely better that the regional set-up used by the ACO. Consequently, to get a confirmed placement would probably have been much easier within the ACF = no concerns about “wasting” valuable leave.
As I said previously, I suspect that if a CTC cse is promulgated, it will run. This has not always been the case with the ACO, & with limited availability = potential problems with getting a confirmed placement. Vicious circle - can’t book leave until I get a placement, can’t get a placement until I book leave, & notification of non-placement = too late to cancel leave. This paradox will have to change in order to minimise inconvenience to applicants.[/quote]
I’ll answer your points in order.
I keep hearing this shooting priority stuff from othe CFAVs not in the ACF, but I don’t see much of it in my part of the ACF. There may be more instructors interested in shooting but the numbers qualified to deliver the neccessary training and conduct ranges are fairly static and probably in decline overall as fewer people can attend a week-long course these days. As to delivering [strike]fresh meat[/strike] new instructors with neccessary quals, that has been more of an aspiration than an actual fact. Safeguarding, FAW, red book and other such [strike]■■■■ covering[/strike] governance checks and tests have pushed aside anything useful to the cadets and detachment commanders like SAAI, minibus driver training, ARD/RCO etc; And as for army personnel rocking up with transferable skills I have seen that only once, and even he was co-erced into doing the cadet versions because of some ambiguous wording about his qual in the PAM. He could have dug his heels in and set the precedent, but hey ho.
As to CTC for the course, I would highly recommend it.
Beckingham is a filthy toilet that should be bulldozed and finished off with a low-yield nuclear device to be sure.
CTC is a luxurious country house in a posh part of Surrey with a waiter/ess service in the mess and a cheap bar. (Although the Frimley port is overpriced and of a questionable quality)
I have never known them cancel a course either.
I fully support this statement.
[quote=“talon” post=21932][quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=21919]
Beckingham is a filthy toilet that should be bulldozed and finished off with a low-yield nuclear device to be sure.
[/quote]
I fully support this statement.[/quote]
As do I, but I thought it was fairly typical of the Land Estate.