Maybe this will raise awareness?
1 Like
Awww. An ex-ACCer there.
Not just transportation, but the whole area wrt shooting that no one at HQAC has or has had the gumption to challenge.
Maybe this is a way in to get the overall admin and over burdensome practices we in the cadet forces in general are subjected to looked into, which are while not stopping people per se, when confronted with it invariably donāt bother.
It would be good to see those responsible for the suspension of gliding and flying wrt 5 AEF, hauled over the coals in The House and expose their shortcomings in delivering an organisationās key activity to young people in all constituency MPs.
Itās no longer just the ACO, either. 11 (Inf) Bde has started imposing extra restrictions on the movement and storage of arms and ammunition in their area, which is essentially the entire South East of England except London. The restrictions appear to come from the G2 branch i.e. the security bods.
The restrictions go beyond the published requirements of JSP 440 and LFSO 2901, though Iām not sure if that leaves them open to challenge. The problem is that one might win a pyrrhic victory, as they hold all the actual ammo and can cut off supply if they chooseā¦
But - the ACO (well, mostly the ATC) does have a whole layer of extra restrictions on qualification of adults that the ACF/CCF (Army) donāt have to put up with. Iāve never seen a written safety case to justify them and I donāt believe they are āevidence-based regulationā.
Which extra restrictions on qualifications do you mean ?
According to SASC, who are the SMEs and actually write the qualifications, a qualification like SAAInstĀ© and SA(SR)07 is valid for life (or length of CFAV service, anyway) for any weapon system for which the holder has a current WHT. This makes them qualified and current. COs are required to supervise use of range qualifications in particular, and to cancel or suspend the qualifications of any staff member if they are unhappy with their competence. This means the staff are qualified, current and competent, or in this weekās jargon, a SQEP.
The ACO imposes the following additional restrictions:
a. A qualification is only āvalidā (according to the F7257) on a weapon system listed therein; and that will only be added to the form where a SATT staff member has seen that weapon system demonstrated using that qualification under test conditions. For example, there exist a large number of ATC personnel with SA(SR)07 who do not have the L98A2 āsignoffā in their 7257. This signoff is entirely unnecessary according to SASC. Fortunately 5 SATT, when I did my qualifications, recognised that as CCF staff I would need more weapon categories, and arranged for me to be assessed on L98A2, L85A2 and L86A2 as well.
b. F7257 has a section at the back for an annual signature by oneās CO (raising all sorts of problems for CCF Contingent Commanders, as theirs is a civilian headteacher not a member of the ATC hierarchy) and once these boxes are all full, a requirement for a SATT member to check competence of range qualifications on a range. Again this is entirely unnecessary according to SASC.
No doubt the justification for both is that this is the means by which the ATC (and I suspect TG5 believes the CCF(RAF), wrongly) exercise the COās responsibility to check the competence of qualification holders. However it is bureaucratic and unnecessary, and, for example, the ACF and CCF(Army) donāt feel the need for it.
Maybe someone in the shooting brother and sisterhood need to lobby their Wg Cdrās to challenge this at Convention. But I get the impression that Convention is a weekend of being preached at and woe betide anyone who attempts to derail proceedings. But it is the only opportunity there is for things to be questioned, queried etc directly with those making the decisions.
Our last but one Wg Shooting Officer thought TG5 did very little and felt the post was a wasted one and all shooting should be devolved to The Army.
With any luck I will be asked to Convention again this year as one of the CCF representatives as I think there is room for discussionā¦
tmmorris you say at point b that the Squadron CO signers off the 7257 each year, thatās not correct it gets done by the Wing Shooting Officer (who is also on the SATT). Once you get to the 5 year mark they just watch you run a range and issue the new one. (Thatās the ATC way).
Also the rules for moving things have been massively lightened, we can use CIās as drivers and escorts again for a start!
Not necessarily! Mine isnāt.
Not entirely true!
The ACTOās suggest that for Sqn based staff the reviewing officer is the unit commander. However, a OC Wg can change this for their AOR to make it the Wg Shooting Officer, WgExO etc as they see fit. I know a number of Wings where the review is done by the Wg Shooting Officer so that a SME is undertaking the review.
At the 5 year point it isnāt just a ārun a range and get a new F7257ā. There is a requirement to complete the Exam, Produce a RAM (which is assessed) as well as conduct a Range Practice (which is also assessed).
At the same time itās hardly taxing, the exam is open book and you should be producing a RAM before you run a range anyway. It just takes some scheduling in advance.
1 Like
I didnāt say Sqn CO, I said CO (no Sqns here, move alongā¦)