RAFAC isn’t the issue, it’s the ATC side of the house.
2 Likes
Last parade we used a visiting ACF instructor/parent. They did a session on observation and the different types of crawling. Didn’t follow the PAMs and certainly not in a progressive way. Did the cadets have fun? Yes. Did they learn something? Yes. Would I want to run it under the RAFAC system? No.
6 Likes
Still not ACO…
aco doesnt exist in meaning.
1 Like
I don’t think we need to press that point any further.
2 Likes
Agreed
We do ‘aggressive camping’ using the spirit of Chap 1 if not to the word.
Objective:
- Improvised Camping
- Teamwork
- Leadership activities
Fun and informative but not School of Infantry level
2 Likes
See above - are we not also having a conversation about being trusted? Yet here we are, bold as brass saying we don’t follow the policy and PAM. THIS is where we fall down in this org, people thinking they can do it differently because it’s “fun” and hey hoe to the rules.
2 Likes
I’d suggest that you don’t really have much of an idea of the regiments current or recent activities if you’re likening us to G4. That’s the kind of comment you expect from a pongo, not someone who should know better. I just hope no budding gunners within your Sqn come to you for career advice. Maybe do a little research first?
1 Like
That’s true. G4 haven’t been caught shoving mortar tubes up where the sun don’t shine…
And that is certainly something we shouldn’t be teaching cadets.
4 Likes
And that’s where we leave it please before this completely derails.
There’s no need to get quite so defensive over a hyperbolic, metaphoric analogy.
2 Likes
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 
1 Like
In my example it was set up as an ACF led course and HQAC signed off on the RAF section cadets attending it so all above board. If our FCI RAFAC staff had led it though we wouldn’t have been able to deliver the lessons as apparently they would have had to teach several irrelevant lessons first.
I wouldn’t have run it just as an RAF section led lesson against the rules, even if I do think they are utterly ridiculous.
1 Like
I’m not sure that is actually the case, interest lessons can be delivered. And frankly the Fieldcraft PAM is more flexible than say PoF.
Fair enough. I’m just going off what our section staff who are FCI say they have been taught in the instructors course
I’m sure it was progressive, the PAM is written in a way that groups the lessons around blocks. So the progression is more within the block (eg WTAS → Pers Cam → observation rather than you must do bashas as the 3rd lesson in the sequence.
The sequence is more critical for the later lessons and Ch2 (which we don’t teach for the most part, but we did in my former parish)
It boggles my mind even further that CCF units who have access to the army cadet regulation side & can operate under them are tied up in the red tape of the ATC.
One of the factors that got me wondering whether the Royal Marine cadet model would be better for us to follow is that with them fieldcraft is still secondary to the water activities.
In ATC world we are trying to deliver fieldcraft
-as if we are training 18year old regulars
-to the same standard if not higher than than the ACF
Neither are achievable for us.
The trouble with the ACF model (for us) is that they are the subject specialist for fieldcraft & it is what their entire cadet force is primarily built around delivering. By trying to adopt the ACF model we are effectively trying to deliver their entire specialist area as well as our own specialism.
The sea cadet Royal marine model may be more suited to us but there appears to be less cross working between SCC & ATC than between ACF & ATC (although on reflection the ATC barely tolerates the CCF(RAF) let alone work with others).
One thing we should take is away that our training & processes should not be more restrictive than the ACF policies - if they let 15 year old cadets teach fieldcraft then we should as well.
7 Likes
If our primary focus is to engage with young people and offer them safe and engaging opportunities that contribute to their individual development we do sometimes seem to get wrapped around surplus and unnecessary technical detail.
Providing we deliver safe training very little ( or indeed anything) we do will have a dangerous carry over effect into adult/ working life if we dont get it quite right. Why? Because the organisations our cadets go into will take responsibilty for them and will have their own training systems, checks and balances to enable them to meet their legal responsibilities.
Am I suggesting that we throw the babay out with the bathwater, far from it. What I am saying is that as an organisation we need to understand why we offer the range of activities we do for our cadets. Personally the question I always ask myself is what does this activity contribute to the generic skill sets we are, as an organisation, good at developing; communication, problem solving , teamwork, leadership Yes, i have often seen these skills emerge as the direct result of an CFAV’s passion for and mastery of the detail of an activity be it drill, flying or fieldcraft but ,providing these activities are safely delivered we are not training adult professionals.We should, in my view, be using them to engage and inspire cadets . Keeping that objective at the centre of our CFAV training should be used to lighten the burden and simplify our delivery.
2 Likes
Yes and no. There’s a difference between ‘can’, ‘should’ and ‘must’. Some Sqns ‘can’ do this and LaSER has one in particular that is quite active in delivering fieldcraft with B&P. However, we ‘must’ have a syllabus that all Sqns ‘can’ deliver. Ie there is no intention to force Sqn-level fieldcraft to include OME or even to say that a Sqn ‘should’ deliver fieldcraft with OME.
This is not correct. Both ACP 18 Vol 1 and ACP 26 permit this, albeit with some activity-specific approvals needed. One Rgn (ahem ) is taking a pragmatic approach to this and granting a standard approval for a specific imitation rifle.
I’m afraid that TGs 5 and 6 can’t help with this. So, rather than bin them off, I don’t see why we can’t continue to employ them to improve our military skills offering. I don’t see a conflict; improving one does not mean we can’t improve the other.
I agree except to add that there needs to be training value which, in part, means teaching things correctly. Otherwise, what is it, exactly, that you’re teaching and why? If your TOs are ‘to go into the wild to try, to experiment, to challenge and to fail (safely)’ then there’s AT for that. (runs and hides)
Not quite correct. The requirement in ACFTI 1 is for an FCI to practise all of their qualification in a 3-year period; an FCI may instruct in lessons 1-19, and plan and conduct DEs. Those are the elements of the qualification which must be practised. To draw a parallel, your interpretation (standby …) would be equivalent to expecting the holder of SA (LR) (07) Cadet to run every CLF on every Cadet WS, and all CCRS competition shoots, once every three years, or for the holder of SAAI Cadet to deliver all lessons for all Cadet WS every three years.
‘Your’ interpretation … I suspect you may simply be following guidance from someone else. If so, I’d be interested to hear from whom.
Let’s talk about progression next. Progressive does not mean that we must follow lesson 1 with lesson 2, then lesson 3 next, etc. We must ensure the participants have the requisite foundation knowledge and skills. Example: one does not need to know how the eyes work at night (lesson 15) before learning reaction to fire control orders (lesson 18), provided the latter is taught in the daytime. If, however, you then practise reaction to fire control orders at night, I’d expect lesson 15 to first be taught. Equally, one should know judging distances (lesson 7) before indicating targets (lesson 8) or else how would the cadet know how to describe the range of the target? However, the cadet doesn’t need to know how to build a shelter (lesson 3) to be able to judge distance or indicate targets. Make sense?
5 Likes
I’ll double check with what I’ve been told but your analogy with an SAAI having to teach every lesson on every WS was certainly the impression I was given as the expectations of fieldcraft. If that is the guidance coming from above I’ll PM you.
2 Likes
ACP 18 Vol 1 Ch 3 is your friend here and, as a more up-to-date and ‘higher’ publication, trumps ACFTI 1 (not that it is in conflict).
Para 3-20: “3-20 Review procedures. The procedure in Fig 3-1 is to be followed, referring to the review measures in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5.”
Para 3-21 attached.
Fig 3-1 attached.
Table 3-4 attached.
1 Like
Actual benefits of CCF - we sort M qual thru Army and have our own rifles.
Tried over and over to get the local Wing in on the action, but no interest.
3 Likes