Shooting saga


#81

it is disappointing to read that
1 - Armouries are/were not at the required standard
surely this should have been known, understood and mitigated against ie deemed “not for use”

2 - given this was found out last year (now I admit last year could be 30th Dec 2018, but equally could be 2nd Jan 2018) why there wasn’t an urgent review and audit of Armouries in use and to immediately block/ban the use of those armouries that don’t comply

3 - given the theft of the L103s and identification these were not suitable to be classed as “DP Rifles” why something wasn’t done sooner, at the very least a recall of all “DP” weapons.

Seems reading this thread and the Telegraph article that there has only been a reaction (to recall weapons) once it happened a second time to a armoury which shouldn’t have been holding weapons in the first place.

Combine this story (live weapons, stored in “unsecure” armouries, and DP weapons which are not “DP weapons”) with the saga surrounding the Gliding (lack of known servicing on the VGS airframes/lack of papertrail of what work has/n’t been completed) it makes me wonder what other shortcuts the MOD/RAF are taking with regards the hardware that is made available to the RAFAC.

At which point do we find out Spooner huts are “just one strong storm” away from falling over? Or that the electric heaters fitted in Cadet huts and building up and down the country have been slowly poisoning us due to the heating of the coating which contains something it shouldn’t?
Perhaps the RACAC’s insurance is actually only valid when conducting activities on MOD property and as soon as stepping out the compound the legal position of such insurance falls over…?


#82

They were. “Required” is a moving goalpost and dependent upon the whim of senior officers and their assessment of risk.

As far as I can tell, the response was pretty much immediate. We have been good in responding swiftly to these two changes of circumstance, and with the .22 part of the saga I do feel that there was too much of a panic by the senior officers and that we could have had a calmer, orderly response.

It seems to me that the various lacks of clarity and understanding in the world of shooting and the seeming misalignment with what is otherwise expected lies very firmly at the door of the MOD, who persist in failing to understand what it is that the cadet forces do/want/need/use/are.


#83

Removal of 103s originally began latest October 18. 144s is a newer situation.


#84

Couldn’t agree more - I offer our armoury, rifles and facilities to my local wing in order to allow for local shoots.

In return my cadets get to tag along. Win/Win.


#85

Perhaps a regional thing, but the email from SO3 A4 Armament that seemed to kick this off here is dated mid-Feb 2019


#86

Which again goes to back to individual DDH taking different views when something is only a suggestion/guide. (No8 end of life a prime example, some Regions insisting they couldn’t be used after the paperwork ran out, some insisting on immediate return to parent armouries and at least 1 assessing the risk and saying “keep using them I’ll accept that level of risk”)


#87

Intrigued by how many break ins there have been in cadet units and there are several incidents going back over the last 6 years at least and one where there was an attempt on an arms chest.
Which beggars belief that only now, something is happening.
Weren’t the others important enough?


#88

I’ve got an email from Sept stating 103s are now section 5 and subject to the same storage requirements as 98s. Email in Oct from armourer about removal of them.

Removal of 144s began for us last month with the option to make alternative arrangements for LPWs.


#89

No need to worry about theft of L144’s - the firing pins would break soon enough! :rofl:


#90

Blockquote
Steve679 - The Armoury cabinet was at correct spec i.e. CPNI approved, the property itself did not have the appropriate alarm as per the JSP (type A or B depending on location) which is why I phrased it that way. They had plenty of time to force their way in to the cabinet and remove the items without being discovered.

As for the L103 it has always been section 5 however I am not prepared to go into full details in a public forum for obvious reasons.


#91

Incubus - Correct the actual “Armoury” was a CPNI approved cabinet, the issue was with the property (as stated in my original post) which did not have an approved alarm system as per JSP 440. This requirement is not new and had been in the publication for a number of years, this is why the weapons have been withdrawn until the RAFAC has finished the current program of installing alarms, RAFAC HQ had been aware of the alarm situation prior to the latest incident (early-mid 2018 at least) and were being proactive in securing the funding to fit the requisite systems.


#92

No DPs (that was Fife) but 0.22 rifles were taken.


#93

What a cluster.


#94

Good to hear. We have an ATC sqn visiting us on Saturday. Though it was fun persuading the local RAF armoury to release ammo to be stored here as they were worried about the standard of security.


#95

HQAC will have known about the alarm situation for many, many, many, many years, mainly as cadet HQs are not alarmed as a rule, ironically down to cost. This would have been from day 1 of the cadet forces and only now it seems due to a couple of break-ins which are not isolated through the years, someone’s sphincter is getting twitchy has got some action. I don’t understand how the other previous break-ins over the years did not mean that something happened sooner.
Better late than never I suppose … situation normal.