MJ, I made our Shooting officer aware of this weeks ago , i thought he was going to spread the word… BG
I found out about the withdrawal of the qCWHT (in passing) on my SAAI course in January. This does not appear to have been promulgated anywhere, and rather unsurprisingly it seems that now (8 months later) there are still plenty of people who don’t realise it is no longer valid.
I assumed that I hadn’t read the updated PAM 21C clearly. Having just gone through it, there is no mention of qCWHT, but equally there is no mention of the WI qualification. There is a paragraph about older courses, but says to check these with SASC.
Have I missed something or is this just poor communication?
For such a significant change, I would have expected (at the very least) a policy statement on Bader (banner headline) & an explanatory letter from TG5.
That requires having people at HQAC who actually give a monkey’s and who fully understand the impact of decisions and the way they are communicated. What is frustrating is that things like this come out without warning or a wind down period and enough provision in terms of training to give people the chance to get requalified almost straight away to minimise the impact.
We were told at the back end of last year about the QcWHT, the negative impact was immediate and has been massive. We have 6/7 WIs in the Wing, as a result trying to get cadets qualified for camp has been a massive struggle and will only get worse. I suppose the next move will make all those who are WIs defunct and only have SAAI.
We need to have phased training for weapon instruction ; a basic one for air rifle and .22 and an advanced one for L98 etc. Probably not something the weapon training fraternity would want to do, but it seems sensible to get interest among staff, as I don’t know many who are interested in the SAAI.
If staff aren’t trained we can’t shoot and but the training regime doesn’t seem proportionate to shooting being one of the top activities, unless we move away from squadron staff delivering weapons training / shooting and go over to a VGS system for weapons training and shooting.
It only becomes apparent when you look at the ACTO’s, i was looking for something when I noticed that ACTO’s 42,43,44 had a new date against them so looked like there had been an update, it was then under definitions I noticed that QcWHT was not recognised to test anymore, I checked with OCSATT and it was confirmed, I was hoping that we would have had a proper heads up by now though, rather than it being secreted away in the OCto’s, BTW the Marksman stuff changed at the same time…
The survey is advertised to all, through a scrolling announcement that require you to sit on a home page for an age to allow them to scroll.
the latest ACTO updates indicate that a full read is required by those involved, but you won’t be aware unless you have alerts on the ACTOs
But the latest ACTOs about this were only updated in June/July. This change took effect last year.
That only went live Wednesday - the survey itself has been live for a bit longer I understand!
Yep, & the Air Rifle marksman test standard doesn’t list the Scorpion, the rifle “sponsored” by HQAC. Also, with reference to the Scorpion, to attend the RCO (Air Rifle) Cse at the end of Aug, you have to have been WHT’d on the rifle - the WHT details will be sent with the JIs…
What is the WHT standard for the Scorpion Air Rifle? If this is unknown to the WIs/SAAIs, how can it be put into place??
Incidentally, under the ACO Shooting Documents on Bader, there is an “Air Rifle Provisional Publication” dated 27 Jun 2014. This will not open for me, so I cannot check the contents; anyone managed to download it please? [EDIT - been sent a copy - many thanks!]
But the latest ACTOs about this were only updated in June/July. This change took effect last year.[/quote]
The ACTOs are catching up with the re-issued PAM 21C, which was updated in Sept 13, which I believe is when the QcWHT disappeared…
MJ, yes I have it, it has lessons and WHT for the scorpion and the CZ200 BG
[quote=“themajor” post=20120]
The ACTOs are catching up with the re-issued PAM 21C, which was updated in Sept 13, which I believe is when the QcWHT disappeared…[/quote]
As I said in my earlier post, I assumed this was the case and thought it was my error for not noticing in the re-issued PAM21. But there is also no mention of WI - but that has not been revoked.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=20119]
Incidentally, under the ACO Shooting Documents on Bader, there is an “Air Rifle Provisional Publication” dated 27 Jun 2014. This will not
open for me, so I cannot check the contents; anyone managed to download it please?[/quote]
Choose the drop down option on the right for this document, click Send To, then Download a Copy. At least, that worked for me.
I have no idea why it won’t open normally.
Thanks all.
Scorpion WHT & lessons, etc (“provisional” document status of course). It has several techniques that are not necessarily good to use, such as “firing off the action” to unload - & then to leave the action closed (wasting the charged air, & leaving bolt closed). We currently use breech flags = leave action open. We don’t have rifles modified for magazines either. WHT - “Rifle fires alright – rifle stops” - impossible to unload (pellet in situ) without handing rifle to the RCO. I might be reading it too quickly, but it doesn’t really tie in with how to use the Scorpion effectively.
Will pass these up the line. There is an OC SATTs meeting this weekend, so if you want to pass on your views about the demise of the qcWHT, etc, get in quick!! 
One point about communication, ACO activities are noir our “prime” job, so every effort should be made from on high to ensure that major policy changes or revisions to manuals, ACTOs, etc, should be promulgated clearly & disseminated downwards in a a quick & efficient manner. As far as numbers goes, we should be considered as a very large corporate entity & the same level of communication should be used. We should not have to rely on noticing date changes on Bader, setting up alerts (if feasible0 for such important changes, or finding a “hidden” policy letter by pure luck.
The specific sponsor should be responsible for a notification that goes to regions for swift downward transmission. All revised documents should have “side-lining” to ensure that the changes are highlighted. if it is a complete new revision, then a bullet point list should be used. One person doing the “here is what is different” message at the very start of the communication chain saves hundreds more having to plough through the various documents,
I completely agree Mike and much like the changes to 1358c where we see the changes in red text this is not used elsewhere.
i think i would prefer the text to be highlighted as it becomes obvious where in the document changes have been made, but certainly agree it should be highlighted.
i await MattB (as another champion for the idea) to come along and second the suggestion that a monthly CRO should be easily produced indicating changes like this, potentially pending policy changes and items like the bivvying drama to show the progress of the “on-going” state (and may encourage HQAC to realise what is left as “outstanding”)
for eg
CRO Aug-15 on behalf of CAC
new revisions
PAM21c - new revision
summary of changes
- we can only fire with our eyes closed
- staff should stand on their hands while coaching
ACPEDTI 16 - update to Senior boys swimming
- when swimming boys must now where a shark fin
Activity restriction announcements
bivvying - following Memo from CAC (dated XX/YY) no bivvying is permitted
current status - under review by OIC Fieldcraft liaising with ARMY
expecting to be lifted: TBC
Gliding
As of date xx/yy gliding in vigilants has paused
current status: this is being reviewed by OC 2FTS following discussions with manufacturer.
expecting to be lifted: earliest Feb2015
Repeat orders
…
etc
IIRC when Dawn McCafferty took over she instigated the cascade of information. At times it did feel like overload but it worked.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=20127]One point about communication, ACO activities are noir our “prime” job, so every effort should be made from on high to ensure that major policy changes or revisions to manuals, ACTOs, etc, should be promulgated clearly & disseminated downwards in a a quick & efficient manner. As far as numbers goes, we should be considered as a very large corporate entity & the same level of communication should be used. We should not have to rely on noticing date changes on Bader, setting up alerts (if feasible0 for such important changes, or finding a “hidden” policy letter by pure luck.
The specific sponsor should be responsible for a notification that goes to regions for swift downward transmission. All revised documents should have “side-lining” to ensure that the changes are highlighted. if it is a complete new revision, then a bullet point list should be used. One person doing the “here is what is different” message at the very start of the communication chain saves hundreds more having to plough through the various documents,[/quote]
HQAC take note. We’ve had Bader for years. We raised this right at the beginning. It’s still not sorted.
HOW MANY MORE YEARS MUST WE WAIT!!!
Survey? There’s a survey?..
[quote=“Batfink” post=20131][quote=“MikeJenvey” post=20127]One point about communication, ACO activities are noir our “prime” job, so every effort should be made from on high to ensure that major policy changes or revisions to manuals, ACTOs, etc, should be promulgated clearly & disseminated downwards in a a quick & efficient manner. As far as numbers goes, we should be considered as a very large corporate entity & the same level of communication should be used. We should not have to rely on noticing date changes on Bader, setting up alerts (if feasible0 for such important changes, or finding a “hidden” policy letter by pure luck.
The specific sponsor should be responsible for a notification that goes to regions for swift downward transmission. All revised documents should have “side-lining” to ensure that the changes are highlighted. if it is a complete new revision, then a bullet point list should be used. One person doing the “here is what is different” message at the very start of the communication chain saves hundreds more having to plough through the various documents,[/quote]
HQAC take note. We’ve had Bader for years. We raised this right at the beginning. It’s still not sorted.
HOW MANY MORE YEARS MUST WE WAIT!!![/quote]
The problem with MJ’s suggestion reference sidelining changes and communication, is it’s what used to happen as a result there is no kudos for anyone coming in as senior management to suggest it, let alone instigate it. If they did there would be a “isn’t that what used to happen” moment and then a lot of pondering about going back and dismissing the idea, even if it is the best thing.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves Bader was ever really intended for us. They might have played up the reduction in admin for volunteers which is the pup line we were sold, we now have people more tied to a desk than we ever did. But in reality it was only really ever intended (like all IMS) for senior management to ponder figures, create graphs, send out snotmails that something hasn’t been done etc, with in the ATC us, the unpaid help, doing all the donkey work.
WRT documents it meant HQAC could lose the cost of printing and postage passing it onto squadrons. Hence we don’t have a clue about what/where the changes to documents are and when they happen, unless you set up alerts. Even then the majority of alerts relate it seems to cosmetic changes such as who has responsibility.
As long as we don’t get any silly ideas there was ever any intention it was there to make life easier for us at the coalface we’ll be OK.