This is where the problems start IMHO. OK if you have experienced and qualified Instructors so where do you get these from? I would suggest that you can’t just use people who have done three years as a SAC in the RAF regiment or as a private in the Regular Army as they would not have the ACP16 angle covered, so there should really be a combination approach- the trainer should have some knowledge and prior experience plus cadet delivery experience to make it work properly.
So if all Wings have loads of Ex Military Tactics instructors who have run lots of Cadet ex then they would make great trainers- but it is not always so, normally an ex OR who held no qualifications while serving.
Of note- and an important factor- does the Northern course also cover the dark art of using the booking LANDSO system- feeding costs etc as well?
Why not? At least they’ll have more experience and knowledge than your average CFAV who hasn’t any prior military service. The ex-infanteers take their experience and adjust it to ACP16. It has to start somewhere.
People can’t gain ‘cadet delivery experience’ until they start delivering!
There’s a few ex-mil in the ACO who held NCO rank and who do hold relevant qualifications. Those Wg’s that have them should (and probably do) use them and those Wg’s that don’t…well, it’s up to them what they do but doesn’t that then beget the question of why don’t we have Regional Fieldcraft Training Teams in each Rgn?
Maybe that’s why North Rgn created their Regional Training Team in the first place? Because they realised that ex-service instructors are few and far between in the Wings? So they pooled resources and created a Rgnl team.
In fact, why not go with a previous suggestion of mine and one that tango_lima alluded to in an earlier post? Don’t have Wg or Rgnl Fieldcraft Instructional Teams at all. Disband the SATT’s and create a central training team made up of ex-RAF Regiment and Army Infantry instructors on an FTRS basis, all of whom will hold the quals and have the experience to conduct all greens training within the Corps.
They run RCO, WI and Fieldcraft Instructor courses on a centralised basis. The budget from the disbanded SATT’s would go towards paying this team who would then have one standard of training for the entire ACO. The SASC have one point of contact instead of the 7 or so they have now and as each SATT isn’t vying for range, weaponry, ammo and SASC resources at the same time, courses are less likely to be cancelled at the eleventh hour.
Interesting as I thought this was the suggested role of the centralised training team already set up?
They have had the devils own job recruiting enough people to it mind but I am told it has more to do with the personalities involved allegedly.
The ACF run a full enabling course with proper qual on the end of it- KGVI- perhaps some experienced ex mil people could get themselves on that to formalise the qualification?
I think given the right people you could to form Regional cadres- my Wing delivers something similar to this and it works although the training standards man on the last one was a recent ex SAC from MT trade… Perhaps a formal qualification perhaps?
Of note having asked this question on the ACF forums they say that all SAAI’s under the new system should also be able to teach ACP16 subjects as they should have been taught how to deliver the lessons, asking ex Infantry instructors they also state this as fact. If non Inf they bolt on the M qual for planning and conducting Exercises with Blank and Pyro- perhaps we do not need this standard and it is probably best delivered at the ACF end but rather a bolt on for SAAI? Covering the lesson format(almost the same)and the how to on bookings etc. That could perhaps be a one day course?
asqncdr, I may be wrong, but you appear to be saying that KGVI needs military types to formalise the qual? My appologies if I have mis-read! The KGVI is a week long course run out of Frimley Park, staffed by ACF and CCF as DS/ADS plus the full time staff including current reg Captain and Major.
Sorry not well put, suggesting that some of the more capable ATC bods could get on it as I have been told most ATC types would not stand a chance with no background knowledge, it assumes certain base skills I am told which would not be furnished by teaching ACP 16 only.
This would provide the top cover for a lower level qualification along the lines of the Norf region one?
[quote=“asqncdr” post=5605]Interesting as I thought this was the suggested role of the centralised training team already set up?
They have had the devils own job recruiting enough people to it mind but I am told it has more to do with the personalities involved allegedly[/quote]
My understanding was that the Central Training Team remit was to run SAAI Trainer courses and to monitor standards on SATT’s? I’m led to believe that the standard of training delivered by some SATT’s is woefully inadequate.
Interesting thought - I’ve heard about this course. If the ACF run it, why can’t the ATC? It would make more sense for the Central SATT to do that.
Out of curiosity, which Wg are you in?
But what happens when that SAAI doesn’t have any experience of fieldcraft? It’s a bit like someone saying: ‘well I’ve read a book on how to fly a jumbo jet so I reckon I can fly one for real’.
Unless the u\t SAAI’s are taken through the ACP16 syllabus as part of their training, they may find they’ll suffer when it comes to cadets asking detailed questions about the subjects.
My understanding of the KGVI in the ACF is to allow running exercises using blanks and pyro and you need to have done an SAA course. Which very much reflects the bulk of the ACFs traning and summer camps, where from what I understand the cadets build up to a 2 day exercise, with blanks and pyro.
It would be interesting to know if any ACF staff with KGVI have moved to the ATC, was it accepted in full and or what reaction they have received from the ATC, if applying to full use it. I can’t see the ATC allowing it to transfer, as they seem reluctant to allow ex-regs to transfer their range/WI qualifications. Personally I would relish someone with it coming to my sqn from the ACF with this, just for the sheer fun element of badgering people up the food chain.
On the face of it, there would be little or no point of any ATC staff doing it, unless the blanket ban on using pyro/blanks was rescinded in toto and not just on application. It would a very large hammer to crack a very small nut, in terms of a basic fieldcraft instructor ticket. There would be no doubt some takers from the fieldcraft lovers in the Corps, but as I say it would be a wasted effort.
If you are going to have qualifications better to have ones you can use on a regular basis or as you want with no extra hoops to go through.
I cannot say I have any objection to this type of course. Any course that can better prepare our instructors so that they can give a better cadet experience is good. We have many of these already for most activities - BEL, ML, shooting, canoeing etc the list is probably endless.
My concern is when these courses are made mandatory, in contravention of Corps Policy but are given regional approval.
Should there be a corps wide Fieldcraft Instructor course/syllabus? Yes I think so.
Should wings/regions be making one mandatory when it is against corps wide policy. No (however correct their intentions are).
What should happen is those regions/wings lobbying to change the policy.
My understanding of the new SAAI qual was that it would include elements of fieldcraft instruction, but alas that never happened.
One point I would add to Gunner’s “what if” scenario of a plank wanting to recreate Rourke’s Drift or Op Market Garden, or something similar, is that wing fieldcraft officers/wing co’s/region cmdts shouldn’t be authorising exercises over and above the individual’s ability… in theory.
Of interest some of the JL staff do the KGVI course which is a transferable qual SA(M)07 Cadets, so there are some ATC qualified.
I don’t think the centralised training team has the experience to deliver this course, afer all you can have Gliding instructors who are ACF CFAV but you would not expect the ACF to start running Gliding training would you?
But aren’t CSATT meant to be wpn specialists who have the necessary skills and experience to teach others? Weren’t they selected for those skills?
The RAF aren’t the only people delivering flying training. I’m sure you know that there is this tiny organization called the Army Air Corps who also have QFI’s?
They are the only ones delivering Flying training to CFAV though, and the other services are directly under the RAF for Flying training, much like you could perhaps have an ATC instructor at Frimley to balance it out? But leave it under the Army? I mean who else apart from the JL people have actually ran an exercise with blank and pyro in the last 9 years?
The Centralised Training team are not what I would assess as the top of the SAA game in the corps, just some people who got in there first according to one or two rather embittered SATT people, I do not know of anyone on it with extensive experience as a service SAAI, a proper one working at a phase 1 or 2 training establishment as an instructor for example, oh there was one I met a RM cadet Csgt but he got the sack apparently for wandering around the mess with his towel over his shoulder in commando order as they say! There might be one or two around now, and certainly one of them is staff on the JL course but rather short of experience.
For ideas going forward I think whatever the semantics there is a need for some sort of training for FC instructors- possibly an add on for SAAI and a more formal Q course in the same way the N Region do it.
This would put a clear structure in place, perhaps they could have a badge…I am joking!
I think that every member of staff should have to sit a BITS course.
Then you can have your fieldcraft at one weekend for those who’ve never done it to allow them to practice the techniques, but you don’t have to worry about teaching them how to teach.
Then all staff have a basis in instruction in our training organisation, but people can still specialise in whatever they like to do.
[quote=“pEp” post=5622]I’m going to through a spanner in the works:
I think that every member of staff should have to sit a BITS course.
Then you can have your fieldcraft at one weekend for those who’ve never done it to allow them to practice the techniques, but you don’t have to worry about teaching them how to teach.
Then all staff have a basis in instruction in our training organisation, but people can still specialise in whatever they like to do.[/quote]
It’s not a spanner by any means. I’ve been banging on about this for years but I still get shouted down by those who say: ‘but I didn’t join to teach, I just joined to do the cooking or the admin’.
The secret is in our name: ‘The Air TRAINING Corps’.
All newly-appointed CI’s should - to my mind - have to do a MOI course, a BASIC course and either a 1 or 3-day first aid course. Possession of all three quals being a pre-requisite to going into uniform.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=5620]The Centralised Training team are not what I would assess as the top of the SAA game in the corps, just some people who got in there first according to one or two rather embittered SATT people, I do not know of anyone on it with extensive experience as a service SAAI, a proper one working at a phase 1 or 2 training establishment as an instructor for example, oh there was one I met a RM cadet Csgt but he got the sack apparently for wandering around the mess with his towel over his shoulder in commando order as they say! There might be one or two around now, and certainly one of them is staff on the JL course but rather short of experience.
[/quote]
I thought of the two top bods in CSATT, one was ex-Army SNCO and the other an ex-RAF Regiment Gunner?
[quote=“Gunner” post=5625][quote=“pEp” post=5622]I’m going to through a spanner in the works:
I think that every member of staff should have to sit a BITS course.
Then you can have your fieldcraft at one weekend for those who’ve never done it to allow them to practice the techniques, but you don’t have to worry about teaching them how to teach.
Then all staff have a basis in instruction in our training organisation, but people can still specialise in whatever they like to do.[/quote]
It’s not a spanner by any means. I’ve been banging on about this for years but I still get shouted down by those who say: ‘but I didn’t join to teach, I just joined to do the cooking or the admin’.
The secret is in our name: ‘The Air TRAINING Corps’.
All newly-appointed CI’s should - to my mind - have to do a MOI course, a BASIC course and either a 1 or 3-day first aid course. Possession of all three quals being a pre-requisite to going into uniform.[/quote]
My bold - I had to do exactly that at seventeen/eighteen in order to stay on as an Instructor Cadet. We were told that the format was being trialled by our wing; this was around the same time as white tapes were going out and there were rumblings about the name being changed from Instructor Cadet to Staff Cadet.
BASIC was weekend 1 and the class was CIs and ICdts, First Aid and MOI was weekend 2 and was all staff. When I went in for the second weekend, the next bunch of new staff were doing BASIC, but were split into classes for ICdts and CIs.
That said, it caused a huge amount of bleating and a lot of those on weekend 1 never came back for weekend 2 as far as I’m aware.