Wearing of CS95 in the North

Everyone Fieldcraft
41

Reading this has got me to wondering why so much fuss over something that is ultimately a secondary activity (I can feel the blades pierce my skin) and why in the AIR Training Corps, we don’t see debate around staff’s knowledge of flying, ‘aviation engineering’ etc, surely that would be far more valuable as a priority, given they form part of the classification syllabus. Is it because they are effectively academic subject matter and therefore regarded as too difficult and or requiring above average academic ability to grasp, as well as some basic understanding of maths, physics and science.

Yes I know they have the ground instructor courses, but these now are nowhere nearly as numerous and or extensive as they once were and some are now one day courses.

42

Fixed that for you.

43

GHE, the difference is, fieldcraft is an active part of the corps, whereas the aviation side is frankly limited and overly academic.

If we cut out all the secondary “fun” activities we’ll end up being little more than an extension of school.

44

PM we’ve always had the “fun” secondary and AT activities when I was a cadet and they sat quite nicely alongside the aviation side. I can’t ever say that the ATC felt like school / unenjoyable when I was a cadet, when the classification side was a far more intensive part of cadet life than it has morphed into over the last few years. It seems to me we spend more time and effort ‘entertaining’ cadets and making things ‘fun’, so that the educational side of the Corps is lost in the fog and cadets stumble into qualifications, through a series of assessments with the proper exam taking a back seat … pretty much like school is in the modern era. In trying not be like school we have IMO in fact become more like school.

There are regions, wings and squadrons who spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds on flight simulators, which after the initial furore sit there doing not a lot because staff (effectively) don’t know enough to use the effectively and or in the case of the region/wing ones an embuggerance due to location. These become ‘toys’ to be played with like any “computer” game, so losing the proper educational context.

The only reason aviation has less significance is in many ways because HQAC has engineered it that way by fiddling with the classfications, in an attempt to become less school-like. It would be interesting to see ‘the take’ on FMS becoming a classification subject. Would it retain it’s ‘fun’ element then, if cadets had to be ‘formally’ assessed and it became a primary activity?

45

I’m all for seeing fieldcraft becoming a part of the classification syllabus - I’m sure that I’ve posted on here before that the IMO that classification training seems very narrow and only covers a tiny part of the aims of the ATC.

My solution was a ‘points system’ in which the current academic syllabus would play a part, but so would fieldcraft and AT (fostering the spirit of adventure), proper leadership training (developing the qualities of leadership) and first aid (skills useful in civilian life, and arguably part of citizenship).

The amount of points available for each would be limited - so cadets wouldn’t be able to just do one thing, although they wouldn’t have to do absolutely everything on the list.

46

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=5664]Reading this has got me to wondering why so much fuss over something that is ultimately a secondary activity (I can feel the blades pierce my skin) and why in the AIR Training Corps, we don’t see debate around staff’s knowledge of flying, ‘aviation engineering’ etc, surely that would be far more valuable as a priority, given they form part of the classification syllabus. Is it because they are effectively academic subject matter and therefore regarded as too difficult and or requiring above average academic ability to grasp, as well as some basic understanding of maths, physics and science.

Yes I know they have the ground instructor courses, but these now are nowhere nearly as numerous and or extensive as they once were and some are now one day courses.[/quote]

You’re not wrong, really…

Sort of fuels the argument for having a specific ‘FP’ type instructor cadre who handle green stuff. The SCC have Marine cadets and CFAVs, why not have a Regiment/TG8 branch within the ATC?

Oh. Was that the sound of a can of worms opening…

47

Or why not just give everyone the opportunity to take part in the widest possible range of activities?

48

Everyone could, they’d just be run by specialists.

49

I don’t see that we need to shoehorn fieldcraft into the classification syllabus, just as we shouldn’t be shoe-horning first aid into it either; stick with the academic stuff we already have.

I definitely support it as being one of the many optional activities we offer, though as a core activity it needs to be offered widely and it needs to be accessible.

Perhaps the training solution lies somewhere between the two we are already advocating: Allow the more basic fieldcraft (which can easily be learned from the materials to a satisfactory manner or, hell, make a video) to be run freely as intended, while requiring a higher level of experience/qualification for anybody wishing to run the trickier things or the more advanced exercises.

50

There is another argument.

Leave FC as the kind of very light activity that it is, with some small improvements that have already been discussed at length for example laying out some scenarios and incorporating proper patrolling/OP’s into things. Just improve the enabling part like North region.

We are not the Army cadets-let them concentrate on their core activity alongside the RM cadets.

But- provide a higher level experience for older cadets with an interest in this- we already have access to the ACF courses at Nesscliffe and Frimley and beyond that to the JL course.

I would suggest a course below the ACF leadership course level to enable cadets who are interested in going for the ACF course or later on JL to increase their basic feildcraft skills to the same level that the ACF require to attend their courses, not expect our cadets to turn up and spend 50% of the week learning skills they should already have to go on these courses and to allow them a level playing field with the ACF.

That would make sense to me and would not be impossible to deliver given that there is probably a pool of ex JL bods around who might like to help.

I don’t think you will ever get to the stage that you will be able to deliver very advanced Feildcraft at Sqn or Wing level to be honest- better to leave it as a nice thing to have and do the basics I say.

51

I’m inclined to agree with asqncdr; my view, for what its worth, keep fieldcraft as it is now - basic, low level stuff. If Wings want to do a FC familiarisation course/instructors course then crack on - but don’t go overboard with it (IMHO, 1 weekend intro for people fresh to the organisation to learn the skills, and a weekends MOI course is enough - but the MOI course shouldn’t focus on Fieldcraft and should be a broad based MOI as the skills to deliver it are the same regardless of the content. SASC/SATTs take note.)

We’d be better off deploying the “regional fieldcraft teams” - or whatever they want to call themselves - in providing higher level activities for cadets, rather than staff. JLs, whilst I’m sure is really good fun (snarf, snarf) is too elitest. ACLCs are too few and far between. If Regional Staff are willing to give up 4 weekends a year for staff, then they should be equally happy giving up the same amount of time to run “ACP16 Vol 2” type courses (which have been promised since ACP16 was released). Higher level fieldcraft, more intense and a precursor to JL/ACLC.

52

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.

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.