What there am should be is a conversion course based on 1 weekend from the SA(AR)12 to SA(SR)07. The former covers a huge chunk of the later, so there shouldn’t be the insistence on having to cover it again when upgrading the skill.
Other organisations manage quite well without it. The range already has a risk assessment and considering that it’s a coupe of lanes of air rifle working out who the safety staff are is going to be very clear, it’s not a 16 lane long range or an AS-90 live fire exercise.
Most air rifle shoots take place within Squadron buildings. We already know what to do if something goes wrong, it’s the same things we would do in any other situation.
It is part of the SST, but would removing it and just going with same risk assessment process that we use for everything else actually make things any less safe? Especially where the range is based on the unit? I wouldn’t suggest that it could be classed as part of Extended Footprint and not even need an application of its being run on a parade night.
I don’t disagree, but then it’s another course that needs to be ran. While there might be an appetite for it I don’t think there would be much.
I feel that the majority of CFAV’s who compete SA(AR)12 might only indend on running AR and not (at least initially) be thinking of it as a stepping stone into full SR.
On a squadron yes its just a couple of lanes. But the qualification allows you to run outdoor rifle ranges as well which if there is enough space could be 16 lanes or more.
Most, not all. While on Sqn it might be easy to remember what to do its always good to have an aide memoir with the steps to follow ensuring nothing is missed from the process.
In the same train of thought as it being the same risk assessment you’d have for other on Sqn activities, your RSD for using the Sqn AR range will for the most part stay the same with changes for whoever is there on the night.
If anything, this encourages complacency IMO. RCOs will just copy and paste whatever details they had in the last approved document, rather than actually think about what the document says you’ve thought about. This is especially the case if the RCO is producing lots of RSDs for the same location and same staff.
Or we could keep the qualification the same, and allow RCOs to shoot on their Sqn indoor range without approval, but if running a range off sqn, apply as per the normal way?
I’ve not seen that but I would support it. Injuries from fingers trapped in the mechanism can be nasty. And depending on how strong the young person is, operating the break mechanism can be difficult and so a bit demoralising/off putting
I could be way off, but there’s a little whisper in my head suggesting mention of something along the lines of “break barrel rifles must be loaded by SS and passed over for firing”.
Maybe that was just something I heard about how some other org operates or duff gen from someone blagging it/whispers of a potential rule being touted…
Neither have I, but that doesn’t mean it no body else hasn’t.
It would still be a two day course, the first half of day one is All about range management and incident reporting. Thats before looking at a range and any demo’s.
How’s it any different when renewing a Risk Assessment? That’s down to the person completing it to ensure it has been done correctly.
However with an RSD we have the SPO who also checks it.
I’m not massively against this, as long as this is an approved process. However the question I do have is how does the RCO record their currency? Outside the F7257 the SMS activity is the record of practices they have ran.
I vaguely remember something along these lines from from olddddd AR policy but I couldn’t say which one from when.
I can see a move to Air Rifle shooting being the first into to shooting for a lot of cadets and moving onto the L98 from there. More sqns are getting the ranges and will be able to run shoots locally.
With it also being cheaper to run (with the majority of it being self-funded) its less likely to be affected by any corps cost reductions or ammo restrictions.
As outlined above, most AR ranges are on a sqn, & I would bet 100%, always run by the same personnel. As such, the safety aspects have continuity of the same location / same personnel - even the exceptionally stupid aspect of having a nominated CFAV for issuing “ammunition.”
The incident reporting aspects could easily be incorporated in the range orders. If the focus is to be on running more AR ranges as the lead-in into the L98A2, then the administration / qualification trg needs to be simplified.
Scrap the L144, go for the Anschutz Youth rifle. End of problem. Worst design brief ever - especially to get a .22 tgt rifle with a safety catch!
I’ve been an RCO for about 40 yrs; we don’t need such complexity for an AR range. Split AR from SASC & all the levels of unnecessary cr@p.
The NSRA Youth Proficiency Scheme is a 2 day cse is quoted at £800 (normally 12 participants) - probably quicker / easier to get on one of these than the rarer than hen’s teeth SATT AR cses. I’m an NRA RCO Assessor - & the faff to get the RAFAC qualifications to run a simple AR facility is “sub-optimal” - before lockdown, I tried to get a sqn CFAV on an AR RCO cse - no SC clearance, so not permitted by the SATT!! Just for AR, no other interest. Guess how interested people are when that happens.
It isn’t, and getting slightly off topic, I think that is one of the issues we face. As an organisation, we expect our volunteers (especially OCs) to create and maintain masses of information. It’s human nature to try and find short cuts like copy and pasting stuff, and I dare say that as a result some activities end up being signed off without the risks being properly assessed, or understood by the person signing off the RA.
Back to shooting, I’ve come across mtiple instances of RAMs, RAPSs, and EASPs that have blatantly been copied and pasted, and as a result, have had wrong information on them.
If people are copy and pasting these documents, and not actually going through the planning thought process, then they are as good as useless anyway. IMO, it’s far better to add Cas Plans, Conducting notes, permitted LFs, ratios etc onto range orders and review annually, and instead create a simple, self approved/OC approved SMS app, with the WShO or SPO auditing a certain percentage of applications.
It isn’t. But I don’t renew a risk assessment for every activity. I review a risk assessment once a year, unless there’s a reason to review sooner, and submit the same RA in the meantime.
For an RSD, I have to at least change the dates and get it re-signed. My main focus when submitting an RSD is checking the dates, dotting the Is and crossing Ts, not checking the content.
The first half of day one is all about range management and incident reporting.
The next half day, and half of the following day was (for me) spent constructing and running an outdoor AR range which we were also told we’d never get approval to do outside of the course.
What could a 1 day course look like?
How about half a day of range management and reporting, and half a day of practice and assessment. Isn’t that sufficient?
This will sounds contentious, but I’d bin the L98. Yes it will impact JL and CISSAM as high level, but there must be a way round this.
Then, focus on AR and getting more Squadron’s that have ranges certified as hubs, make .22 shooting more accessible. Keep fullbore target shooting for competition training, Bisley etc.
Perhaps look to differing the nature of .22 shoots, why not three position shoots with a .22?
Clays should also be pushed, a different skill, and also quite often something more fun than target shooting, but something to easily get people interested.
