[quote=“steve679” post=6151][quote=“jacques” post=6099]One of my friends has been told that his SAAI qualification only permits him to teach No. 8 Rifle, even though he is current on the L98A2 as well.
[/quote]
there are WIs out there who are only permitted to teach/intruct bolt action rifles, ie No8/L81 i suspect the SATTs offer a diluted WI course to permit this. i know of one such WI.
any SAAI (ie the new course) will be permitted to teach the L98A2 and No8, with any other weapon systems that they have recieved the full training for
a SAAI is not permitted to teach another CFAV unless that training course is approved by SATT, with a training course reference number and is attended by a SATT member.
-note there is no “conversion course” the L98A2 is a different weapon system to the L85/L98A1 and thus must be taught as such.
this is to offer a paper trail for each CFAV taught to protect them and the system should anything go wrong at a later time.
if for example a CI was taught the L98A2 in 2010, and worked through to RCO in 2012, if that RCO then had an incident on the range in 2013 it could be asked how was that RCO trained on the weapon? the correct answer being after attending this approved SATT course (with ref number) as supervised by this SATT member. done to avoid L85/L98A1 experienced shooters shown the difference locally in an afternoon as a “quick conversion conversation” rather than the correct training program.[/quote]
On an aside, this course is an excellent course, and is tough, which you would expect given the qualification that is awarded on successful completion. If you want to do it ensure you have a high understanding of the rifle and good personal drills, you also need to have studied the Pam to ensure you are aware of the content of each Rifle Lesson, as you will teach 3 of them over the course. Failing one will not result in a fail, and what you fail on will also impact the final grading.
Including the No8? I’ve not heard about SATTs running No8 training days and I suspect that SASC have better things to be doing with their time than attending them.[/quote][/quote]
No sorry that wasnt clear.
only the L98A2 requires SATT approval for CFAVs - why the difference i am not certain, i presume because of the similarity between other weapons systems (L85/L98A1) and/or the higher complexity in comparison to No8/L81
although what themajor says is correct, a SAAI can train anyone, to teach CFAVs SATT approval is required with at least one SATT member present.
ie CFAVs do not need to attend their local SATT HQ and spend the weekend away from home to be trained by SATT members, attendance at thier own Sqn is acceptable providing training course has an reference number which can be referred back to (issued by SATT), and is overseen (but not necessarily taught) by at least one SATT member.
So. To repeat my question from earlier, with a specific example: GPMG?[/quote]
Yes.
If an SAAI has received GPMG (LR) Lessons 1 - 8 and the appropriate practice periods and he has passed a WHT on it, he can train and test others on it. I can’t see any reason why anyone in the ACO would need to use one in an SF role, but if they did, the same applies.
Of course, Regional HQs and SATTs might well impose stricter regulations as they do with most things.
Questions relating to this sort of thing should probably be posed to the CTT or TG5. I’m sure the CTT’s Adjutant would be happy to answer any questions, or pass them on to TG5. PM for an email address, although it’s listed on Bader somewhere.
For those WI’s who can’t see the point in attending an SAAI course, I know three good WI’s who’ve gone through the course and came away as much better instructors, by their own admission.
I’m sure Blu3zirux will add his own comments, but from what I’ve seen the average WI around our way is pretty poor (even guys who are on the SATT).
Not conducting lessons as per the PAM, basically just teaching cadets to pass a WHT (and often times teaching them incorrect drills, fads, and wrong information).
Those who’ve done the SAAI course seem to come back as professional, well-drilled, military instructors. There’s a notable step-up in the way lessons are delivered.
The main benefit I see is coming back with crediblity. Something which a lot of instructors lack in my opinion.
I wish we applied the same high standard to DI courses and sacked off some of the muppets.
What we as an organisation need to work on is encouraging personal development.
Standards slip because people become slack.
Particularly with regards weapons, instructors should be striving to keep their skills up.
The current situation where I’m failing cadets (who’ve paid to attend an L98 training course) simply because they’ve not been instructed correctly is unacceptable. It’s not fair to them.
I agree: we keep on top of range quals with regular checks and it may be time to do a little diligence on the other skills too; after all it happens with adult FA trainer qualifications.
There is an underlying feeling of “fire and forget” within the shooting world, even with RCOs to some extent: I have seen numerous changes to the way things are done since I got my first F7257 many years ago but can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve been properly brought up to speed on these changes to procedure and requirement. The shooting hierarchy seems lazy in that respect and relies on individuals needing to wade through shockingly-written manuals or interrogate those just back from courses to find out what is current practice
If I were solely engaged in providing shooting opportunities in the ATC I would have a better chance of keeping up, but how many of us are in that position? There are an awful lot of things we all need to be keeping up with in the ACO (plus I do have a day job) and it was about time this was recognised and clearer, better support offered to us all.
From what I have heard/discussed/seen, the “quality” is no different compared to the old WI course. The old course was very intensive and you had to be a true gun nut to pass it. The new course has a little more leeway, which is probably a good thing.
The issues however will be the same for both the old WI course, and the new SAAI course - skill fade due to lack of putting into practice, lack of oversight (amazing how the mind focuses when you’ve got a SATT member watching) and general laziness/corner cutting.
I see it every year with a course I take part in.
Ive heard there are moves afoot to introduce some kind of currency check, similar to RCO re-quals/currency, but who know what/when/if this will be introduced.
On a note with SATT approval for CFAV training, I don’t think this is set in stone. We were certainly briefed on our SAAI course we could train staff along with cadets. No mention was made if SATTs having to approve. Also, who is to say SATT members are up to standard. The majority, I believe, have not upgraded their qualification from WI to SAAI, so a new SAAI could well be teaching better than an old and crusty SATT member.
In North Region, there is a CFAV course for those wanting to progress to SAAI or RCO, but to just fire the weapon systems they can be trained by a SAAI.
From what I have heard/discussed/seen, the “quality” is no different compared to the old WI course. The old course was very intensive and you had to be a true gun nut to pass it. The new course has a little more leeway, which is probably a good thing.
The issues however will be the same for both the old WI course, and the new SAAI course - skill fade due to lack of putting into practice, lack of oversight (amazing how the mind focuses when you’ve got a SATT member watching) and general laziness/corner cutting.
I see it every year with a course I take part in.
I’ve heard there are moves afoot to introduce some kind of currency check, similar to RCO re-quals/currency, but who know what/when/if this will be introduced.[/quote]
This depends on the quality of course delivered by the local SATT, the currency check similar to the RCO 4 yearly would defiantly be a step forward, but requires a suitable person locally to conduct.
[quote=“themajor” post=6201] but requires a suitable person locally to conduct.[/quote]SATT personnel would seem the logical choice, so they’d better ensure those who need it are whipped into shape first
On a note with SATT approval for CFAV training, I don’t think this is set in stone. We were certainly briefed on our SAAI course we could train staff along with cadets. No mention was made if SATTs having to approve. Also, who is to say SATT members are up to standard. The majority, I believe, have not upgraded their qualification from WI to SAAI, so a new SAAI could well be teaching better than an old and crusty SATT member.
In North Region, there is a CFAV course for those wanting to progress to SAAI or RCO, but to just fire the weapon systems they can be trained by a SAAI.[/quote]
[quote=“incubus” post=6204][quote=“themajor” post=6201] but requires a suitable person locally to conduct.[/quote]SATT personnel would seem the logical choice, so they’d better ensure those who need it are whipped into shape first [/quote]
I’m both hopeful and confident that this will happen (both SAAI 4-yearly’s and SATT whipping) sooner, rather than later.
That’s certainly not my experience.
My WI course was a piece of cake. Medicore standard, poorly thought out (noone had considered at the time that because conversion training had thus far only been offered to current RCOs and WIs, none of us would have an A2 WHT).
I was signed off as a WI without ever having recieved a lesson on the L98A2! Ludicrous.
Because I take a personal pride in my abilities I sought out a full course of training, but I’m sure other will not have.
It’s fairly well known that there are many bad instructors hiding on SATTs, and I know these are being targetted from up top.
Whilst I’ve not been on the SAAI course yet (though I much look forward to it) I have seen the way it’s delivered first hand, and know the attitude to trainining that the CTT staff have. It’s way above the standard of the WI courses I’ve seen!
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=6193]
Ive heard there are moves afoot to introduce some kind of currency check, similar to RCO re-quals/currency, but who know what/when/if this will be introduced.[/quote]
this was actually a discussion i had with other students on the course
RCO’s are retested, FAW has an expiry, BEL/ML etc require evidence it is being used
but SAAI/WI does not.
i can’t see why after every four years a SAAI shouldnt expect a visit from CTT/local representitive. so in themajors case at some point in 2017 they will be communication from CTT to themajor asking what dates training is taking place, and CTT will endevour to get a rep there and sit in the class, potentially doing the same for other SAAI thus many birds one stone scenario.
since passing the SAAI course i have been invited to join weekend courses and seen lessons which wouldnt come close to passing a SAAI course TP, in one case you’d even question if the instructor has ever seen PAM 5-C!
if the SAAI course was set up tp help avoid poor standard WIs taught locally, by the use of a CTT then why not keep an eye on that standard…?
[quote=“steve679” post=6208][quote=“Perry Mason” post=6193]
Ive heard there are moves afoot to introduce some kind of currency check, similar to RCO re-quals/currency, but who know what/when/if this will be introduced.[/quote]
this was actually a discussion i had with other students on the course
RCO’s are retested, FAW has an expiry, BEL/ML etc require evidence it is being used
but SAAI/WI does not.
i can’t see why after every four years a SAAI shouldnt expect a visit from CTT/local representitive. so in themajors case at some point in 2017 they will be communication from CTT to themajor asking what dates training is taking place, and CTT will endevour to get a rep there and sit in the class, potentially doing the same for other SAAI thus many birds one stone scenario.
since passing the SAAI course i have been invited to join weekend courses and seen lessons which wouldnt come close to passing a SAAI course TP, in one case you’d even question if the instructor has ever seen PAM 5-C!
if the SAAI course was set up tp help avoid poor standard WIs taught locally, by the use of a CTT then why not keep an eye on that standard…?[/quote]
There was talk of this on the course the problem at the moment is who does this as the CTT are doing 2 weekends most months running SAAI courses, and they have jobs too
[quote=“themajor” post=6224]There was talk of this on the course the problem at the moment is who does this as the CTT are doing 2 weekends most months running SAAI courses, and they have jobs too[/quote]They need a larger team and they need to be less Central!
indeed they do and on my course syndicate they invited one member to join their team who has done so (and passed the instructor bit) - i’m not sure if he is now the “local rep” or will be covering the rest of the country like everyone else but the team is slowly growing…
