Wearing of CS95 in the North

Everyone Fieldcraft
1

So what else can we wear greens for… :frowning:

Letter to all North Region from Fieldcraft SNCO

REGIONAL FIELDCRAFT INSTRUCTORS’ COURSES

References:

A.​ACP 16 – Manual of Fieldcraft Training
B.​AC/N/19/1/Trg, dated Jan 10
C.​AC/N/19/1/Trg, dated 5 Aug 11

1.​Chap 1 of Reference A states that Fieldcraft may only be taught by “an Authorised Instructor who knows the subject, and has the experience to teach and deliver it” (p.5). A higher level of governance was introduced by the Regional Commandant at References B and C to the effect that all personnel who wish to instruct Fieldcraft on Basic and/or Advanced Deployed Exercises (BDEs/ADEs) are to have successfully completed a Regional Fieldcraft Instructors’ Course. These Courses are held throughout the year by the Regional Fieldcraft Training Team, of which I am the Officer Commanding.

2.​It has been brought to mine and the Regional Commandant’s notice that various rumours have been circulating through Wings of late regarding the future of these courses, and the necessity for potential Fieldcraft Instructors to complete them. I have therefore been ordered to make it clear to all personnel within the Region that henceforth all personnel who wish to instruct Fieldcraft external to the boundaries of their Squadron Headquarters are to have successfully completed a two-part Regional Fieldcraft Instructors’ Course and thereby be accredited as a Qualified Regional Fieldcraft Instructor (QRFI). The purpose of this course is to ensure that all personnel meet the same baseline standard in terms of knowledge and instructional ability. These courses will remain a permanent facet of Fieldcraft Training within North Region until orders to the contrary are given to me the RFO .

  1.    It has also been brought to the attention of the RFO and RATTO that some AT personnel are of the belief that you can run fieldcraft exercises within an AT application and not be found out (the answer to this is there Wrong!!). Fieldcraft has no direct path to AT and as such any ACO personnel running fieldcraft under the guise of AT will run the risk off disciplinary action. It also needs to be noted that greens (cs95) uniform is not to be worn on any AT activity this is corps policy and in line with ACO dress regulations

4.​I remind all of the Regional Commandant’s statement at Reference B that the intention of this approach is to make Fieldcraft more exciting whilst binding it with governance and standardisation. Fieldcraft is in its infancy but is growing at a healthy rate, the future is very positive as fieldcraft evolves in the North and we only see this as an asset to the cadets future. Calling Notices for courses are sent-out prior to each Part One course, and include details of the course content and dates of future courses. In addition, the Team will be manning stands at the Regional Competitions Day on Sun 16 Jun 13, and will therefore be on-hand to demonstrate the skills that are taught and to discuss matters with any who are interested.

C James
WO
Regional Fieldcraft Officer (North)
For and on the behalf of Regional Commandant (North)

2

As much as it amuses/riles me when lower formations issue orders in direct contradiction to those clearly stated in Corps policy, this example is not exactly news.

I’m not sure what you mean by “So what else can we wear greens for” here: certainly the prohibition of CS95 in AT is a known policy and stated clearly in the ACATIs.

3

It has always struck me as on odd thing that you can camp and go map reading in Uniform on DTE or elsewhere in Uniform with few qual’s apart from being a grown up and being trusted not to mess up but the minute you do it in Civilian clothes and tents it needs at least a BEL to deliver- according to this logic a BEL can’t run a feildcraft weekend?

Not sure what the value of these Feildcraft courses are, has anyone done one of them? I have seen one where the absolute beginners are given a run out alongside an existing ex and that is quite a good concept- any other like things going on?

4

Other than being over-zealous in making people do a 2 weekend course for what is essentially wearing make-up, boiling a packet of food and attaching 2 bungees to a bit of tarpaulin, I don’t see what’s new or wrong with the above?

5

Is it? I think it’s sensible. I’m surprised by the number of ATC types who either A) struggle with the above or B ) never bother to read ACP16, think the things in it are ‘boring’ and decide that ‘Fieldcraft’ means trying to mount squadron attacks with fifteen cadets and a minibus while drawing all their expertise from the Wikipedia pages for ‘Rommel’ and ‘Blitzkrieg’. These being the same people who weaken the argument about ACP16 being too restrictive by throwing a tantrum about not being able to have GPMGs and mortars for their ‘Night Ex’ then try to borrow a 105 light gun or a Typhoon anyway.

6

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having a standardised course and for having a basic techniques course that offers CFAVs a chance to do it for the first time, but 2 weekends? Really? At at regional level means that people are going to have to travel from a long way away to attend, unless you’re blessed with training areas and can run several courses a year.

7

Fair one.

Didn’t Gunner have a sort of back-of-a-fag-packet plan involving replacing SATTs with a band of roving ex-rocks with a remit covering all green stuff?

8

1 weekend to teach ACP16 (mainly for those with minimal fieldcraft expierence but also to show those with expierence the left and right of arc) and then a 2nd weekend covering policy and teaching

9

To address the original question:

Which I assume was refering to this line:

[quote=“REGIONAL FIELDCRAFT INSTRUCTORS’ COURSES”]

It also needs to be noted that greens (cs95) uniform is not to be worn on any AT activity[/quote]

The answer is:
Fieldcraft, Skill at Arms, or any other suitable occasion - pick one; the only exception being AT.

10

except for CI’s

11

This is over complicating and Empire building at its very, very, very best. I would guess the RFO (never heard of one of them before) is making a job for himself and a few mates.

12

The concept is sound and I support it as an idea, but making it mandatory is in direct contradiction to ACP16 :slight_smile:

13

Two weekends would not exactly endear itself to people, especially in a Regional context, it’s bad enough within a Wing. One weekend should be ample.

14

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=5564]Two weekends would not exactly endear itself to people, especially in a Regional context, it’s bad enough within a Wing. One weekend should be ample.[/quote]Yes, it should.

15

Why? They aren’t making it mandatory for all CFAVs and thereby making Fieldcraft a mandatory activity. They’re just saying that if you want to do Fieldcraft on your unit you have to have an instructor who has done the course.

I disagree with the idea that one weekend is enough, too. The way duty_pongo explains it makes perfect sense. One weekend would be too rushed.

Having seen the way this stuff gets done around my part of the world, I can’t fault North Region’s way of doing things.

16

Why? They aren’t making it mandatory for all CFAVs and thereby making Fieldcraft a mandatory activity. They’re just saying that if you want to do Fieldcraft on your unit you have to have an instructor who has done the course. [/quote]

There was a line in ACP16 (or somewhere) which stated clearly that no additional obstacles were to be placed in the way of people wishing to conduct fieldcraft training but I cannot find that any more - it may have been removed in the Jul 11 amendment.

17

I’ve split the thread. To discuss the regional fieldcraft courses please use this thread but to discuss wearing CS95 use the other.

18

I’ve split the thread. To discuss the regional fieldcraft courses please use the other thread but to discuss wearing CS95 use this one.

19

Even for those who’ve never undergone fieldcraft training, let alone taught it?

“Hands up all those who’ve ever slept in a tent? OK, lets spend a weekend talking about AT, show me how to put a tent up and I’ll give you all your BEL qualification”.

If only. Leading an exped for DoE or whatever isn’t exactly hard but look at the hoops one has to go through. Can you imagine the BSC (or whoever awards BEL these days) letting someone have an award after one weekend. I don’t think so. I would lay money that if North Rgn’s course was only one weekend, you’d say it was too long and suggest it could be done in a day.

In my Wg, I do it one of two ways:

  1. For those staff with previous regular or reserve forces experience and who have undergone fieldcraft training during their service, they do one day with a Fieldcraft Trainer. The day covers ACP16 Policy and and converts them to cadet-based fieldcraft, followed by a oral check of understanding. After that, the trainee instructor presents 1 x 45min lesson on a practical fieldcraft subject whilst being observed by a trainer.

  2. For those who have no previous service or haven’t undergone fieldcraft training in the past, they must complete the ACP16 syllabus over 2.5 days. They then progress onto the Fieldcraft Instructor training day as (1) above.

This then ensures that all Fieldcraft Instructors:

  • have undergone training in the subjects they themselves will be presenting
  • are standardised with regard to current ACP16 policy and procedures
  • have demonstrated their understanding of that policy and taught a fieldcraft lesson to the standards required

It helps to ensure that no duff gen is given or unsafe practices occur. If an individual wants to conduct Exercises, they do an additional day, part theory and part practical where they are given a portion of the ADE to conduct whilst being observed by an experienced Exercise Controller. In effect, our course is longer than North Rgn’s (4.5 days as opposed to 4 days) but I feel it is only right that we give our staff the tools with which to do the job, rather than just let them loose without any training where the potential for accidents happening is far greater.

tango_lima is right though - one would only do these courses if one had an interest in the subject. If you don’t want to do the courses, you don’t have to do them. It isn’t mandatory because ACP16 doesn’t make it so.

Imagine this. A CFAV with no experience of fieldcraft, no BEL, in fact armed only with a MOI and bags of enthusiasm, ran an ADE with 50-75 cadets and something went wrong. A cadet is seriously injured because the EC didn’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to foresee what might happen. At the resulting court case when the cadets parents sue the ATC, some of the questions asked of the CFAV might be:

Prosecution:
“and what training where you given to carry out the role of an Exercise Controller in charge of so many cadets?”

CFAV:
“er, none”

Prosecution:
“what experience have you had in conducting similar activities?”

CFAV:
“er, none. But they said I’d be OK”

Prosecution:
“who are ‘they’?”

CFAV:
“Wing Staff”

I wonder how the case might end? Vicarious liability and all.

As far as I’m concerned, we have a moral - if not legal - duty to ensure that our CFAV’s have undergone training and have demonstrated their competence BEFORE being let loose with other people’s children. Gone are the days of yesteryear when we just all put on our combat clothing and went out on a parade night and held an impromptu exercise, teaching cadets subjects based on something that my grandads mate who knew someone down the pub who had a dog who was a Regimental mascot, told me. Not only do we live in a litigious society but it’s also about raising professional standards within the organization as a whole.

20

[quote=“tango_lima” post=5566]They’re just saying that if you want to do Fieldcraft on your unit you have to have an instructor who has done the course.

I disagree with the idea that one weekend is enough, too.[/quote]
We have become over the years a ticket for everything organisation (just as in society), not a bad thing per se, but the way this has manifested itself it has deterred a lot of people from doing things, which isn’t good for the cadets. I know for a fact that the 2+ weekend course format causes no end of problems locally as the weekends have to be when stated and with no flexibility, which doesn’t take into account an individual’s availability. The only people who seem to be able to have any attendance flexibility are those running the courses who may well scrap it at little or no notice. Not good if you’ve had to arrange cover or taken holiday.

Personally I think the basics can be covered in one weekend. Policy is a pre course reading exercise as is much of the learning side, such that day 1 is admin / doing things practically and day 2 concentrates on teaching a given topic and admin. You stay overnight putting the “cooking and camping” skills side of fieldcraft into practice and prepping for your lesson done in the evening. Yes it’s intensive, but far better than taking up 2 weekends.