Wearing of CS95 in the North

Everyone Fieldcraft
53

Hmmmm interesting in that in your later post you are suggesting an ACF approach to FMS training and while not a core subject for the ACO, it would be getting pretty damn close in terms of the focus and intensity.

I am somewhat at a loss with the notion of Regionally administered training, given that the SATTs IMO have woefully underperformed / been unable to cope with the requirements, to the point where they seem to be a hidey-hole for those who like to dress up and play soldier. Their focus should be on delivery of training to staff in the Corps but there seems to be too many distractions and an inflexible in terms of appeal to staff of a do it our way or no way appoach to courses. Unfortunately I can see any FMS training resource going down the same road. In the process leading up to them there would be a lot of hi falluting talk making us to think it’s the bee’s knees, but it would soon devolved into too little and too far between and become a place for the wannabe’s to play. I would love to be proved wrong.

54

The more regionally based training there is, the more staff will be syphoned off to do the training and the less will be available locally.

I don’t think it outside the realms of practicality for SATTs to be involved in FT as well as weapons based training, indeed in my neck of the woods many of the SATT staff are also keen fieldcraft staff, and are involved in training (at least on a wing level).

Whatever is decided (if anything) it is probably worth considering what traning is available, and necessary, and how best to deliver it, on a national basis, rather than each wing/region deciding their own thing, making up their own rules etc.

55

GOM, missing the point there, the idea I am suggesting is to leave the delivery model as it is at Wing and Sqn level precisely because we are the Air cadets not Army cadets

But

As HQACO has decided that the ACF managed Leadership courses can be attended by ATC cadets (as well as the JL but not the point here) then we should make the cadets selected to attend these courses as well prepared as their ACF/CCF counterparts are- I am suggesting an advanced course to do this, the side effect would be to grow SME’s from the cadre of staff working on this course who could then deliver the ACP16 training with some experience. They could then also progress to M qual once experienced.

This leaves it very much as n add on and not core experience- but along better lines, I suppose it could be organised centrally but had not explored this yet.

I would love to see a SATT who could deliver this training, none I know hold the current Qualification to do it.

It is blue sky thinking- but developing good ideas.

56

[quote=“asqncdr” post=5725]The ACP16 Vol is dead as a concept- HQACO are no longer empowered to make up their own training publications for SAA under the Safe system of training regime.
The ACF Manual is what I suggest we should follow up to the required star level for these courses- 4, which would include Blank and Pyro under the correct ACF managed Jt qualification and governance route. This would aim to demonstrate leadership at this level to the cadets and allow them to take part in the activity rather then end up leading something they had never seen or done before, which happens on the current ACF cadet courses.

It would also bring them to exactly the same level that ACF attending those courses are at.

There are not enough nominees for the Frimley and Nesscliffe course from all Cadet forces, the ATC gets the lion share of reserves allocated places because of this. Maybe make completion of the advanced course to 4 star level the pre qualification to attend the courses in any given year? there are only 2 Frimley leadership courses this year (not to be confused with ACLC a non tactical leadrshipaclc

Might be a leap to far in one go but could evolve as such. It would mean some cadet would be satisfied completing just this course and not doing the leadership elements on the other course but who would mind?

This would build a suitably experienced and qualified pool at Region level for example to deliver informed lower level training down.[/quote]

[quote=“asqncdr” post=5725]GOM, missing the point there, the idea I am suggesting is to leave the delivery model as it is at Wing and Sqn level precisely because we are the Air cadets not Army cadets

But

As HQACO has decided that the ACF managed Leadership courses can be attended by ATC cadets (as well as the JL but not the point here) then we should make the cadets selected to attend these courses as well prepared as their ACF/CCF counterparts are- I am suggesting an advanced course to do this, the side effect would be to grow SME’s from the cadre of staff working on this course who could then deliver the ACP16 training with some experience. They could then also progress to M qual once experienced.

This leaves it very much as n add on and not core experience- but along better lines, I suppose it could be organised centrally but had not explored this yet.

I would love to see a SATT who could deliver this training, none I know hold the current Qualification to do it.

It is blue sky thinking- but developing good ideas.[/quote]
Forgive me for saying but for a Sqn Cdr (and not just in terms of your username) you seem to know an awful lot about what goes on at Rgnl\HQAC level in relation to JL’s, SAA training, ACF methods etc.

Do you have any involvement - directly or indirectly - in any HQAC leadership course initiatives by any chance? JL’s perhaps?

57

None apart from ACLC as DS.

I am asking these things because I have decided to write a paper on it- hence I have asked a lot of people a lot of questions outside this forum to form an opinion, I visited both the Nesscliffe course last year and the Frimley course and have had long conversations with the Training Officer there, who is ex RAF BTW. He raised the idea of a bridging course to bring ATC up to speed, I have put it into the context of the current delivery model and existing expertise.

I also trawled 6 years of ACF course reports to determine if ATC cadets are actually disadvantaged and also spoke to TG1 and staff members of SATT’s various about this subject.

I must admit I am shamelessly using this paper for my own dissertation which will cover a lot more than this when it is done.

I do not have a white pussy cat on my lap either…

58

[quote=“asqncdr” post=5762]I must admit I am shamelessly using this paper for my own dissertation which will cover a lot more than this when it is done.

I do not have a white pussy cat on my lap either…[/quote]
Do you plan to release the paper publicly when it’s finished? I’d definitely be interested in reading it.

59

So…restating my idea from earlier…

Why not have a JL type ‘squadron’ in every wing?

If cadets want to do fieldcraft to a decent level then they attend additional training weekends with this ‘Force Development Squadron’, where they could do proper green activities, fire blank etc, and would basically follow the ACF syllabus in addition to their usual ATC activities.

Staff who want to instruct Fieldcraft and Skill at Arms would have to be a part of the staff side of this although potentially on ‘permenant loan’ to local Squadrons as SAAIs.

Everyone involved could have a gucci badge for their greens (and blues?), maybe a ‘FD’ badge like the RNZAF FPs or (with permission from Hons) something like the Regt crossed rifles with added Air Cadet falcon…

Really basic ACP16 and shooting stuff could still happen at squadrons, under the direction of staff and NCOs with the additional training, in the same way that GDT/CCS in the Air Force is directed by instructors from the RAF Regiment.

60

[quote=“tango_lima” post=5769]So…restating my idea from earlier…

Why not have a JL type ‘squadron’ in every wing?

If cadets want to do fieldcraft to a decent level then they attend additional training weekends with this ‘Force Development Squadron’, where they could do proper green activities, fire blank etc, and would basically follow the ACF syllabus in addition to their usual ATC activities.

Staff who want to instruct Fieldcraft and Skill at Arms would have to be a part of the staff side of this although potentially on ‘permenant loan’ to local Squadrons as SAAIs.

Everyone involved could have a gucci badge for their greens (and blues?), maybe a ‘FD’ badge like the RNZAF FPs or (with permission from Hons) something like the Regt crossed rifles with added Air Cadet falcon…

Really basic ACP16 and shooting stuff could still happen at squadrons, under the direction of staff and NCOs with the additional training, in the same way that GDT/CCS in the Air Force is directed by instructors from the RAF Regiment.[/quote]

This to me is a really good idea, not sure on cadets being part of the ‘squadron’ persistently, but it would be the wing equipment of SATT, providing training & Development opportunities for SAA & F&MST.

61

Oh dear, sounds like the regt flt idea that existed on some squadrons a few years ago and invariably led to all the spanners being in one box.

While an interesting idea, being a wing based body, location, location, location, would affect it, unless you had a really small Wing with excellent transport links. I would suggest lots of initial interest getting people all excited and then it would devolve into a few squadrons local to where the training happens to be taking place or the staff with the greatest interest. I’ve seen this happen with ceremonial drill, bands, Nijmegan and sports over the years. Purely because the initial interest wanes, we all have lives and your own squadron’s other activities (with the exception of flying and gliding) take precedence, over other things. One thing I have seen over the years is a reluctance for people to travel any sort of distance for activities, even when it’s what they’ve asked for. I have arranged for cadets to do things they’ve said they want to do at other locations and said they have to make their own way. Result nada.

Frankly if ‘green’ and associated activities appealed to that extent I would suggest joining the ACF, rather than follow the ACF syllabus with the ATC bits added on.

62

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=5772]Frankly if ‘green’ and associated activities appealed to that extent I would suggest joining the ACF, rather than follow the ACF syllabus with the ATC bits added on.[/quote]I don’t think that’s what he’s suggesting - rather that cadets follow the ATC syllabus and have ‘ACF’ bits added on during weekend training.

I’d be cautiously in favour - my feeling is that a series of weekend modules should be offered (say 10 for example), completed roughly in order when necessary - at the end of which cadets have completed the course and can become staff cadets. Probably not entirely unlike GS - which cadets seem happy to attend on a regular weekend basis despite having to make their own ways there.

BTW, didn’t mean to click ‘thank you’ on the post above but I pressed the wrong button and there’s no way to undo it!

63

I’ve removed it for you :wink:

64

[quote=“MattB” post=5776][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=5772]Frankly if ‘green’ and associated activities appealed to that extent I would suggest joining the ACF, rather than follow the ACF syllabus with the ATC bits added on.[/quote]I don’t think that’s what he’s suggesting - rather that cadets follow the ATC syllabus and have ‘ACF’ bits added on during weekend training.

I’d be cautiously in favour - my feeling is that a series of weekend modules should be offered (say 10 for example), completed roughly in order when necessary - at the end of which cadets have completed the course and can become staff cadets. Probably not entirely unlike GS - which cadets seem happy to attend on a regular weekend basis despite having to make their own ways there.

BTW, didn’t mean to click ‘thank you’ on the post above but I pressed the wrong button and there’s no way to undo it![/quote]

Bingo.

It seems logical to me precisely because Air Cadets ‘don’t do’ soldier stuff. If you want that to be your primary focus then you’d be in the ACF, right? I know, I know, it’s not actually like that, but it just seems that if the resources were concentrated in one place for those who really want to do the ‘Regiment’ side of stuff then the training could be of a much higher quality and those who had done it could then go back to their units and help deliver green training ‘lite’ with more confidence and value for other cadets who are focused on the ATC core activities.

To extend your VGS analogy, you don’t see local squadrons trying to deliver gliding on a parade night and the cadets who are also part of a VGS are able to bring a valuable contribution to their units in the form knowledge from practical experience.

My problem with the delivery of all ‘green’ training in the ATC is that because it’s not a core activity and not well supported (which is entirely understandable - it isn’t the ACF) it ends up being delivered in a half-***ed manner by people who aren’t entirely sure what they’re doing, which makes it a waste of time that could be spent on activities aimed at the same outcomes but delivered better.

65

Staff cadets are different beasts being over 18. If you mean cadets to act as staff for the for course, then OK as long as the are able to get there.

I’m not too sure about cadets seeming happy to attend weekend GS it’s if their parents are happy to take them, but I suppose that does depend on your proximity and or how easy it is to get to. I did all my parental driving around when fuel was cheaper, now you’d do it, but it would be at the expense of something to cover the cost. A weekend GS for one of my cadets completing in say 4 weekends represents something like 800 miles of driving and c.32 hours driving for the parent, if they hang around for the minimum time.
So your suggestion of say 10 weekends with a 50 mile round trip taking roughly 1½ hours represents 1000 miles (c.£200 in fuel alone) and c.30 hours for a parent, unless someone provides an SOV local (say 8-10 miles away) to the cadets. The 10 weekends like a GS would probably be weather affected as well, potentially extending the course.
I think my experience is relevant though and it is soul destroying when you have jacked it up, think you’ve got the numbers coming only to find the interest wane.

I make no apologies for taking the economic view, as we do live in austere times and I have got cadets where parents have suffered the same as everyone else and it is wholly unreasonable to expect staff with no interest to effectively act as a taxi service. Whenever you start thinking about things like this now, the economics have to be taken into account as much as everything else.

66

Nonetheless, we have sent plenty of cadets off to do weekend GSs, and they’ve continued attending weekends as staff cadets afterwards too.

67

[quote=“tango_lima” post=5769]So…restating my idea from earlier…

Why not have a JL type ‘squadron’ in every wing?

If cadets want to do fieldcraft to a decent level then they attend additional training weekends with this ‘Force Development Squadron’, where they could do proper green activities, fire blank etc, and would basically follow the ACF syllabus in addition to their usual ATC activities.

Staff who want to instruct Fieldcraft and Skill at Arms would have to be a part of the staff side of this although potentially on ‘permenant loan’ to local Squadrons as SAAIs. [/quote]

My wing has a number of ‘Wing Training Teams’, which work in a similar way to this.

The most active ones, off the top of my head, are the radio and AT teams.

They run all the usual courses, but they will also visit squadrons when requested to run individual sessions or whole parade nights, bringing all the qualified staff and necessary kit.

It seems to be working well for radio, although some people see the AT team as a bit clique-y.

68

In the last 5 years I’ve only had one out 8 do a weekend GS. Mum and dad weren’t too happy about it but lived with it. But then with GS and VGS staff cadet you are talking about something that stands out on a CV.

69

Thanks for the contributions and suggestions- would it be possible do you think to run this add on at Wing level or would it need to be at Region?
I am focusing on the right staff/right kit. We are not naturally endowed with too many staff able to deliver this without it being harlf Ersed? Also getting the right kit do this properly, Small radios and support vehicles for example in some Wings may be impossible. Perhaps a Region level team could build a store of kit like basha’s etc for issue?
I do intend to publish- but following the rules for this sort of thing means HQACO would get first dibs…

70

[quote=“asqncdr” post=5833]Thanks for the contributions and suggestions- would it be possible do you think to run this add on at Wing level or would it need to be at Region?
I am focusing on the right staff/right kit. We are not naturally endowed with too many staff able to deliver this without it being harlf Ersed? Also getting the right kit do this properly, Small radios and support vehicles for example in some Wings may be impossible. Perhaps a Region level team could build a store of kit like basha’s etc for issue?
I do intend to publish- but following the rules for this sort of thing means HQACO would get first dibs…[/quote]

I would say it ‘should’ be Wing level, but I can see why it might have to be Regional.

Kit might have to be a beg/borrow/steal thing…how does it work for JLs?

Could initial staff be poached from ACF/CCF? Look at where the original RAF Regt officers and NCOs came from…

Don’t forget, in my vision, these ‘Force Development Squadrons’ would do more than Fieldcraft, they would be responsible for ‘green’ activities: fieldcraft, shooting definately, but also First Aid, navigation, comms in certain contexts.

71

JL’s are funded by the organization. In 2006, Wg Cdr TG told us that they receive £10k (so probably more now) and they are allocated an amount of kit which is dedicated to the course. They boost their funds by charging each candidate a course fee. I’m not sure if the ILM qualification is included within it.

It’s not a route I personally would care to go down. They have their own roles, responsibilities, trials and tribulations.

Your vision has already been realised - these are called ‘Training Ground’ and most - if not all - Wings have them. Thames Valley Wg calls theirs something along the lines of ‘Training Development Sqn’ or suchlike.

Thing is, the ATC are not a ‘Force’ or an operational entity, so the title wouldn’t be entirely appropriate. As a WTO, I am also the Wg FMS Officer and I have a pool of FMS instructional staff - most are ex-regular or reserve forces whilst some are CFAV’s who want to get involved. My Wg are quite good when it comes to buying FMS kit and I’ve also obtained shed-loads from local CCF’s.

72

JL’s are funded by the organization. In 2006, Wg Cdr TG told us that they receive £10k (so probably more now) and they are allocated an amount of kit which is dedicated to the course. They boost their funds by charging each candidate a course fee. I’m not sure if the ILM qualification is included within it.

It’s not a route I personally would care to go down. They have their own roles, responsibilities, trials and tribulations.

Your vision has already been realised - these are called ‘Training Ground’ and most - if not all - Wings have them. Thames Valley Wg calls theirs something along the lines of ‘Training Development Sqn’ or suchlike.

Thing is, the ATC are not a ‘Force’ or an operational entity, so the title wouldn’t be entirely appropriate. As a WTO, I am also the Wg FMS Officer and I have a pool of FMS instructional staff - most are ex-regular or reserve forces whilst some are CFAV’s who want to get involved. My Wg are quite good when it comes to buying FMS kit and I’ve also obtained shed-loads from local CCF’s.[/quote]

  1. Sorry - I meant in terms of where the actual physical kit comes from. Whose is it? All the friend of mine who recently finished the course could tell me was ‘We borrowed it shrug’.

  2. I’m not sure I see your objection? asqncdr suggested that he saw manpower as a problem, one solution is to recruit people who already have relevant quals and experience

  3. I’m not sure how many wings do…but under this plan those that don’t (It would seem like asqncdr’s wing and my old wing) would gain one and these would be brought into a formal structure with those that already exist. Like you say, your Wing is good, let’s make every Wing better.

  4. I don’t think the name is entirely important, but I do think it should give members a cohesive identity and some sense of esprit de corps. The ATC is as much a ‘Force’ as the Army Cadet ‘Force’ or the Combined Cadet ‘Force’, but I only used ‘FD’ since it sounds like ‘FP’.

  5. Sorry, edit to add one question…I’m guessing as OC FMS, shooting is outwith your remit? The biggest change here would probably be linking the two more closely. You’ll know from your experience how in the Armed Forces SAA and fieldcraft are largely complimentary, ATC shooting is obviously totally target based, which isn’t a bad thing at all, but does seem to lead to it becoming a stale activity. Most of my ATC shooting experience was alright, but seemed to consist almost entirely of just converting live .22 into empty cases at 25metres. I’m not saying “Let’s put cadets through the ACMT!” just that shooting maybe needs an injection of people with wider vision/imagination/experience than the paper-punching Bisley types.