We have lost sight though of whether someone is suitable and competent to teach the subject.
Looking at one case, and purely an example I have dreamt up; a staff member does a FAAW course. Struggles through, needs lots of extra help, and just passes the assessment. They walk out the building after the course a fully certified, bona fide, proud first aider at work. Are they confident of their own abilities? Do they feel comfortable (as you can be) to even administer first aid? So should they ever be teaching Cadets first aid? Seems many will yes as they have the certificate. How many would be willing to challenge them?
Likewise, that highly qualified individual might not be able to tailor their delivery to a level appropriate for Cadets. If they cant do that, then they are just as unsuitable.
I have to agree with this. Even though I do find the whole first aid thing frustrating, I am open to do an AFA course because some of the content is not what I do on a daily basis as a nurse, so a refresher wouldnāt hurt.
Although I think there has to be some scope for deviation with regards to who is qualified to do what. For example there could be a shorter AFA course for healthcare professionals.
The AFA couldnāt get much shorter. I thought my FAAW requals were bad enough, but it seems that with AFA itās done in little more than a day and a couple of hours assessing and that includes those whoāve never done any First Aid.
If you were a cadet, I would put big money down that you benefited from and were instructed by the very sort of people you now feel able to deride. Which seems to be a trend on here among those I assume to be younger staff, who now feel they know better.
I would say that the same people with an AFA doing it because they have to and no interest at all in FA are far more problematic. The majority of people who do FAAW at least seem to want to do it and arenāt press-ganged as per Air Cadet volunteers. Iāve got two members of staff who only did to shut up people moaning at them, including me, as I was getting it in the neck that they hadnāt done it. They have no interest in doing FA or instructing it, so what a waste of time and effort on all parts.
What do we want people willing and able to volunteer and give it a go, or some mythical entity.
You mis my point slightlyā¦ Iām not saying we canāt deliver other things within our scope of interest; Iām saying that where there is a defined syllabus which has been designed for cadets - such as Fieldcraft we need to stick to it and not just let any old Tom, Dick or Harry start teaching everything they learned as a Para/Marine/whoever they were with.
Not many! Which is exactly why there are courses to train people to instruct.
This isnāt some Air Cadet exclusive bullā¦ The military donāt just say āGreatā¦ Youāre a gunner - go and teach these guys the same stuff you learned about skill at arms and fieldcraftā¦ā; They provide courses to prepare and qualify people as instructors.
This idea, held by some people in the RAFAC, that just because Joe Bloggs is ex service means that we should just give them free reign to crack on is utter nonsense, and where people choose to walk away rather than do whatās required to satisfy the instruction requirements it very much says something about them!
Itās not always because the organisation is too far up its own backside - sometimes itās because these people believe that that they should be able to waltz in and play Billie Big Testicles, telling the cadets and CFAV whatās what without any check on their abilities.
Indeed, there are times a plenty when the organization doesnāt get it right.
I know a guy who is a first aid ātrain the trainerā. He contracts for St John Ambulance and had a valid and current qualification/ St Johnās trainer registration number, &c but he was told in no uncertain terms that he must attend an AFA courseā¦ Because it was an āATC specific courseā. He was told that the current FAAW qualification which he also holds wasnāt good enough either.
Frankly, having done the AFA course all I can say is ācadet specificā my backside!
I was actually going to give an example of how in a certain activity field that we can do in the Cadets, I hold the highest possible international qualification, which I also do for my civilian job. However, I would not be willing to use this for the related Cadet activity, nothing to do with preservation of my qualifications, but because I know that what I do for work is totally different to what Cadets do, and that someone else who would be regarded as having lesser qualifications is actually more suited to teaching that than me. However I stand by the point that there are people out there who regardless of a qualification should not be teaching it, regardless of the volunteering element of it.
So because we teach cadets how to fly for classifications and on a simulator does that make them at risk of going and stealing a plane and flying it?
I can see where you are coming from but decoupling first aid from classifications I donāt see as logical. Knowledge is knowledge. Itās down to the individuals to use it responsibly on both trainer and learner sides.
Iām saying thereās less risk teaching outside of the syllabus for classification topics than there is for the 1st Aid syllabus.
That risk is mitigated by limiting the accepted training standards to ensure knowledge of and ability to teach our 1st Aid syllabus.
What Iāve also said elsewhere, is that I think thereās a middle ground to be met with something like 1st Aid, where you either hold FAW, AFA, or greater plus an abridged āfamā course. Our tie-in With SJA leaves us hamstrung, too.
I dunno, I think with some of the flight sims squadrons have or say they have cadets could almost be very much with some practical real aircraft input, be at a point where they could get into an aircraft and fly it.
I think with FA, unless itās family people regardless of training are not going to do much beyond their training and because people are nervous of getting this wrong will only instruct to the book.
I have to admit FA is the one thing I like instructing least but feel compelled to because of the Air Cadets rules.
In essence what is needed is a training qualification, subject expertise/qualifications and quality monitoring to ensure trainers of whatever subject is done safely, effectively and to the relevant syllabus.
We get around that with MOI or accepting PTLLS/L3 T&E depending on the level you want to train.
AFA or FAW
Maybe slack, although the mechanisms are there and easily achievable informally with borrowing instructors/assessors and getting feedback. Cadet feedback on each course.
Which is precisely why weāre sometimes a little precious about getting some highly qualified people to do a ālesserā course. And that equally applies to FT as well.
Could we do better? YES! But Iām not sure what youāre trying to get across with your last two comments.