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
As an FCI of many years I read this topic with interest. I have seen the results of “having fun” and its not pretty. If you have an unskilled person doing thier own thing then you get unpredictable results down the line. If you are going to teach something then do it properly. It takes a lot of effort to unlearn duff drills and can be embarrassing for the cadet if they go elsewhere and the stuff that’s lodged in thier brain is wrong and possibly stupid. We had a cadet from a Squadron who was taught all sorts of made up filed signals. They never learned the correct ones and not only were they embarrassed at being “stupid” (From other cadets) but they werent understanding or being understood. They dropped out from all FC because they hadn’t been properly taught from the start but they loved the topic.
Lets just send them up in gliders, they don’t have to be taught properly - as long as they have fun and fail. Experience is ideally something that allows you to make a different mistake next time.
1 Like
My thoughts too. Fun easily becomes lazy and unprofessional.
Why stop with FCI? Anything can be ‘fun’. Instructor doesn’t know the NATO phonetic alphabet? No problem. A is for Albert, B is for…
My issue with lax training is that we cease to be a credible military youth organisation. This is where we let cadets down. In my opinion, it all starts with CFAVs addressing cadets by their first name and giving times in 12 hour clock format.
3 Likes
Please just don’t forget we are a Youth Organisation first, Military Themed second.
While the corp aim of learning skills useful in military and civilian live is still held; we need to remember to keep things fun, and not just military training.
7 Likes
I said it should be fun not School of Infantry…
… never said it should not be correct
2 Likes
There is an interesting balance between teaching things 100% correctly and teaching things in the way that someone understands. The normally used term is “lies to children”
We teach something that isn’t really right but by doing so we make it easier to learn the correct way. (Think about the theory of how a rainbow forms)
There is also a difference between teaching the current stuff & teaching olds.
Cadet weapon systems lag behind that of the regulars so fieldcraft tactics will as well.
When we had the L98A1 the fieldcraft tactics & precautions were very different to the L85.
Back when we had ACP16 I ditched it as being too complicated & naff (& also in my opinion unsafe) & used an ACF/CCF Cadet training manual - the cadets had a lot more fun & enjoyed it, the lessons were simpler & more logical.
I think what needs to considered is linking training to need. Cadets will probably do
- practise basic patrolling for a couple of hours in a park,
- then may be a day long exercise maybe with a night/after dusk phase
- a full overnight deployed exercise.
For the first part, cam & concealment, why things are seen, field signals, patrol formations.
Second part would types of movement, packing Kit, cooking in the field, night movement, judging distance target indication potentially reaction to enemy fire…
3)patrol harbours, duties of a sentry, section battle drills/attacks, ambushes, bivvi/bashas.
All of this can be made very boring or very fun depending on the instructor & their style.
8 Likes
Thread Drift Start - I’ve noticed the same regarding PMEs. General public know no difference, ex/current military likely will and so comment, but that which is largely for a public audience only need convey a certain image and as long as it is slick, the minutiae don’t particularly matter - Thread Drift End.
1 Like
As a cader (many years ago), my Squqdron had a Band Flight and a Police Flight complete with blue webbing and ATCP armbands !
2 Likes
My old Sqn used to have a regt flt. By the time I joined it had become ‘special flt’ but still wore regt rank slides and black ATC cap badges (completely unofficially).