That needs 2* dispensation so is outside of our organisation to gift it.
Make it an RSD covering a monthās parade nights - much simpler. The admin to run an AR range is time intensive (in advance for the RCO & SPO), & afterwards for the shooting return(s) & SMS updates - when the heck will a ābadgeā shoot (AR1, AR3 & AR7) automatically transfer across to the relevant qualification?
1 Like
Lay out the protocols & processes - letās try. It would be RAFAC in-house, much easier to administer.
Constance - when I told her that our brand new Scorpion air rifles had been delivered - with the safety catches on the right hand side (so a huge faff with interference with the closed bolt). She couldnāt see the problem - had to take one along to a Wg shoot that she attended to demo the issue. 
The rifles were sent back to have the safety catches fitted on the left sideā¦
[quote=āMikeJenvey, post:142, topic:14147ā]
Make it an RSD covering a monthās parade nights - much simpler. The admin to run an AR range is time intensive (in advance for the RCO & SPO), & afterwards for the shooting return(s) & SMS updates
Conversely, Iāve had a sqn put a single SMS covering a month. Every qualified staff member listed, on the RSD with āwill pick on the nightā.
This was halfway through the month, with the SMS still at draft, and three nights already being firedā¦
How can i assure that? Whose on the range on those evenings? Who was current and competent to deliver? Which cadets were there?
Also, who was the RCO? There were multiple RSDs to cover the different RCOs.
Acceptable.
NOT acceptable. Freeze that range ticket, come & have a one way chat.
If they are current, it should be acceptable. Iāve planned RSDs ahead knowing that my WHT will expire in the interim - but itās always actioned to be valid for the shoot(s) in question.
We often donāt know for sure until a couple of evening before - herding cats. Then, on the evening, 2 cadets might be no shows, but 2 similarly qualified cadets are available to shoot. Names added. Crack on. Flexibility is needed.
Move everything to a system similar to the Scouts - use NSRA safety protocols. Make it simpler, not harder.
I could, for our 2 RCOs, get 2 RSDs (one of each RCO) for each parade night per month = 8 RSDs for SPO to check / approve. Pointless exercise. One ārepetitiveā RSD that covers both RCOs for the month should be workable.
1 Like
You and I arenāt going to agree on this.
Lets end this debate, before it gets too much. Happy olto take it to DMs.
Maybe not - but the different points of view are important to look at strengths / weaknesses / possible options in order to push any case forward. I might have missed important supervisory considerations whereas end users might have very beneficial solutions to some of the problems.
Itās very clear that a massive increase in AR use will not work without systematic changes / improvements. The current approval system is cumbersome, over-plans for a simplistic rifle system, & doesnāt allow a reasonable degree of flexibility.
Yep, happy to go to DMs - or even my 100 email. 
3 Likes
I think that this is the type of cse that Scout staff do in order to run ranges.
https://hampshirescoutrifleclub.org.uk/training/nsra-youth-proficiency-scheme-yps-tutors-diploma/
Ā£95 is cheap for a 2 day cse, & I would hope that there would be other geographical locations for similar cses.
I donāt understand what you meanā¦ it can never just be RAFAC in house, we have to have external assurance.
Be that an NGB or SASC.
NSRA for AR. End of assurance problem.
The Scout instructors do this type of NSRA YPTS CAE ā go run a range.
Leave L98 as it is - more resources in that direction.
3 Likes
Haha, thatās not the end of the assurance problem, we need to develop internal assurance processes and make sure people know what that qual looks like and what the expectations are. What admin are people expected to do, who reviews it prior to them and how are they qualified, current and competent to do that?
There would have to be changes to the syllabus, you would also lose access to any ranges that donāt allow that qualification so would be down to RAFAC and ACF owned ranges only where the RAU accepts that risk.
Then what happens when the 2* changes and they wonāt accept the risk of us not using the MOD SME (SASC) based qualifications and pushes back the route of using those courses?
Then Get it signed off a Secretary of State or minister of state level? Harder to change then.
Thereās too much bureaucracy in shooting caused by our own issues.
So for example why do we issue our own F5727 qualification numbers when we should just use service number.
Itās easily trackable, a known MoD supported number format, and anyone can look it up.
Another thing that needs reversing is people other than weapon instructors being able to update the WHT & training data on bader SMS.
It takes the pressure off the SAIs , shares the admin burden & engages more people in shooting so hopefully encourages more people to get involved. The system should be auditable anyway on who updates things.
It also allows WHTs conducted by non RAFAc personnel to be updated.
Both are examples of RAFAC bureaucracy that we could loosen up on & would help engage staff 
1 Like
We no longer issue these and use a service numberā¦ have done for some time.
Apologies ! Have been a little out of the shooting loop for a little while but last time I raised it through official channels (circa 2019 I think) it was massively pooh Poohed on the grounds of maintaining assurance & integrity of the system. Glad that bit got changed ! 
1 Like
This can also be done,
Yes it has to be entered by someone who has the WI(C) or SAAI(CF) qual but it doesnāt have the entered by the person who completed the test.
ACP18 Vol 1 - Chap 4, Para 4-07
Not unfeasible - the NSRA already runs (or sponsors) these courses, so itās not a start-up facility.
I would suggest that the CLF exercises would remain as they are, but the admin & pre-approval protocols could change drastically - i.e. eradicate them. As to range access, well, how many sqns solely use a civilian range for their AR shooting? The planned expansion of 300+ sqns to have AR facilities would (I presume) have an approved target backstop + pellet catchers. Simple.
If the approval case is solid enough (backed by an NGO - NSRA in this case) & it continues to benefit safe AR shooting for cadets, why would there be a push-back?
Whilst prudent to look at potential obstacles, & how to avoid them, letās look at solutions. As we had for the No 8 replacement, there was a huge opportunity to benefit / progress cadet shooting. This was thrown away (for many silly / illogical reasons); we shouldnāt lose out again.
Moving AR shooting to RAFAC only (maybe in conjunction with the ACF, etc) would be a huge boon - simplification of trg, admin, & better use of resources. Out of interest, is there any type of budgeted cost centre or similar against SASC & their associated inputs for AR?
From my basic maths earlier, assuming 300 (at least) ānewā sqns to be AR-equipped.
Thatās going to be 300 RCOs required. Some sqns may have RCOs already, but even at perhaps 250, thatās a lot of cses to run. That back-log will take yrs. The SATT teams wouldnāt be able to cope to get that many AR RCOs.
300 sqns with say an average of 25 cadets to do (as currently) IWT for the AR - assume 5 per sqn are already so trained; thats 300 x 20 cadets for IWT + WHTs. How many SAAIs needed to run that many IWTs (max - 10 per cse?) & how long would it take? How many SAAIs needed to keep all those WHTs valid every 6 months? The SATT teams wouldnāt be able to cope to get that many AR SAAIs - even if SASC approved such a cse.
Scout route - say 12 people per group on a cse to get the NSRA YPTS cse. Price is Ā£140 if not a Scout member. You might even get a local NSRA-Qualified instructor to travel to a sqn (I used to do that for NRA RCO cses rather than the club members have to travel to Bisley, Iād go to their club / range).
Iām sure that if there was a RAFAC / NSRA formal affiliation, the cost would come down for cses held on an NSRA local range or similar.
Once qualified, those people, as tutors, run associated trg / shooting on their sqns. WHTs not required, RSDs not required.
That would allow more SAAI resources for L98.
Guess which is the simpler option? 
2 Likes
But this already works for AT. And Iād really argue thereās substantially more risk with some AT. Yet NGB quals are great. AR should, or at least could, be no different.
4 Likes
this also already works for Archery which is at least if not more dangerous (if done wrong) than air rifle
3 Likes
The CCF (Army) already uses the NSRA Qual and the CTTs deliver it. There might be some regs limiting its use to school premises initially.
Iām unsure if it has extended to the ACF yet.
ACF units also have a portable backstop, it folds down into the sort of cases used for exhibition stands. This must have been assessed as safe, so hopefully we could adopt it too where a TS25 or permanent backstop isnāt feasible?
2 Likes