Should the Aircadets move to the Sea cadet/Royal Marine model of delivering Fieldcraft/Regiment training

Everyone Fieldcraft
41

No process for that and not sure the MOD could cope with it.

42

The Army is really weird financially it’s why I always use army training camps where I can as they have no way to bill us for messing!

10 Likes
43

Per ardua ad astra

44

Or our motto.

Mitigate, deteriorate.

4 Likes
45

Wasn’t aware of that being the case although I can understand the questioning of why we weren’t seeing our own people on the courses & if there is no quid pro quo.

1 Like
46

They weren’t stealing places, just filling blanks in the latest scenario. I can understand it if they were being given priority but generally they are helping our numbers look better.

CFAVs pulling out of courses last minute is becoming a real issue in the RAFAC. We don’t seem to see the same from SCC/ACF.

1 Like
47

Would be interesting to see if the same is true on their own courses. If your going out of your own Organisation to get a course then you are probably more committed than average.

1 Like
48

On the whole there isn’t much of a problem. I’ve never really turned up at a national level course where there was a large number of dropouts.

49

Our headshed were looking into a “rifle” that could be used for both SAA and rifle drill, and would obviously not be real for firearms reasons, but were unable to get something durable enough that wasn’t an actual weapon.

I do know that there is a company working on something like you describe for supply to ATRs on an MOD contract, though I don’t know about the sling loops. They are looking at this available for purchase by the cadet forces and going by numbers, the cost was estimated at £10-£15 a unit.

3 Likes
50

I think it would help enormously if the ACO made a policy decision that Fieldcraft training/experience does not have to be correct, it simply has to be enjoyable, challenging, and contextually safe.

It’s an activity to be enjoyed, and learnt from in a personal development way, it’s absolutely not about about giving a 15yo the direct skills required to be a soldier.

The problem (broadly) is the adult training pipeline required to produce instructors who can teach cadets to do Fieldcraft according to the PAM’s. If you remove the requirement to teach the subject according to the PAM’s you instantly simplify the adult training pipeline and you massively reduce the problem.

Cadets, and staff, do not need to be able to teach and conduct a doctrinally perfect Close Target Reconnaissance, or a Coy sized attack on a defensive position, or create and operate a patrol harbour in the way it would be taught at Catterick or Lympstone - they simply need to be given the basic tools/skills/ideas around Fieldcraft, and to be let out into the wild to try, to experiment, to challenge themselves and each other, to fail (safely), and to achieve goals.

Fieldcraft should be enjoyable to do. It’s absolutely fine to create an activity that’s simply fun to do - the clever thing is to create an activity that is both enormously fun and one that forces /allows cadet (and staff…) to dig deep inside themselves, to learn about themselves, to challenge themselves and how to set and manage challenge in others.

None of those things require the challenge to be doctrinally correct.

9 Likes
51

The what?

RAFAC. You mean RAFAC

Otherwise yes. Completely agree with your post.

1 Like
52

I think the issue is not the PAMs but the currency. To stay current you have to teach every lesson over a three year period, keeping a log of when you do it etc

If this bit was binned, & the logging requirements only mandated for deployed exercise or OME, you still have to follow the PAM but your paperwork burden is less.

It amazes me that the ACF has 15 year old cadets teaching basic fieldcraft yet in the ATC we have to do three weekend & maintain currency.

3 Likes
53

RAFAC isn’t the issue, it’s the ATC side of the house.

2 Likes
54

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
55

Still not ACO…

aco doesnt exist in meaning.

1 Like
56

I don’t think we need to press that point any further.

2 Likes
57

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
58

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
59

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
60

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