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.
[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=“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.
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.
[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.
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.
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=“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.
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.
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]
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’.
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
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.
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’.
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.
No idea. Maybe JL’s are feeling the pinch these days just like everyone else.
Because ACF staff have their own units to look after and to double up with the ATC, well, it may produce a load of political issues which we can all do without. Don’t forget there are some in the higher echelons of the ACF who actively discourage relationships with the ATC.
Then I think that both Wg’s should be lobbied so that they can produce effective training teams.
Using the word ‘Force’ in an Air Cadet context would meet with stiff opposition from certain…lets call them…‘cold war warriors’, whose thinking hasn’t changed much since the 1970’s.
Quite right - I have no involvement with shooting except that as the holder of an SA(B)90 qualification, I organize my own range practices for cadets and staff. If I didn’t, I doubt very much whether our shooting bod would. I keep well away from the SATT types but I do see the merit in having an enthusiastic (and not to mention experienced\qualified) person heading up both shooting and fieldcraft. They go together in the same way as a horse and cart. However, the downside is that - as you rightly say - shooting in the ATC is target\competition focussed whilst in the Forces, it is joined at the hip with FMS.
1)I meant offer them some incentive to sack the ACF and become ATC staff.
2)That’s really what I think I’m suggesting…only the lobbying coming from above and those ‘effective teams’ being linked to each other for mutual support and sharing best practice…
3)Tell them to get stuffed? But seriously, call them something else, but give them a proper identity so they can fight their corner Corps wide. One of the important effects of forming the RAF Regt was that (in modern speak) it created a stronger ‘brand’ than the Ground Gunners had.
OK, first things first.
I have never had the “pleasure” of sitting and reading cover to cover ACP16.
I’m sure it’s a riveting read.
However, I have had the pleasure of observing some Fieldcraft lessons being conducted in accordance with the aforementioned Air Cadet Publication.
There is so much more that could be taught. So much more that could be interesting and exciting for cadets. Using bungees and a cape for a basha is so out of date. This is where the ex-Regulars need to shine. This is what we know. I don’t know how an aeroplane flies. Well, I do, because I teach PofF, but you know what I mean. It’s voodoo to us ex-Guardsmen!!
The ACP is there for good reason. Damn good reason in fact. But we cannot be tied down by every single line on the paper. We must abide by the basics but be prepared to create a dynamic line of training which will not bind us to the rules and regulations so much that despite how good an instructor we are, the lesson is dull. (especially when the rain is coming down sideways!!). All CFAV should be at least MOI/BIT/DIT qualified regardless of uniform or not. This must be non-negotiable and one of the priorities of every Sqn Cdr, Wg Cdr, R Cdr - all the way up to Zero Alpha.
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=10947]OK, first things first.
I have never had the “pleasure” of sitting and reading cover to cover ACP16.
I’m sure it’s a riveting read.
However, I have had the pleasure of observing some Fieldcraft lessons being conducted in accordance with the aforementioned Air Cadet Publication.
There is so much more that could be taught. So much more that could be interesting and exciting for cadets. Using bungees and a cape for a basha is so out of date. This is where the ex-Regulars need to shine. This is what we know. I don’t know how an aeroplane flies. Well, I do, because I teach PofF, but you know what I mean. It’s voodoo to us ex-Guardsmen!!
The ACP is there for good reason. Damn good reason in fact. But we cannot be tied down by every single line on the paper. We must abide by the basics but be prepared to create a dynamic line of training which will not bind us to the rules and regulations so much that despite how good an instructor we are, the lesson is dull. (especially when the rain is coming down sideways!!). All CFAV should be at least MOI/BIT/DIT qualified regardless of uniform or not. This must be non-negotiable and one of the priorities of every Sqn Cdr, Wg Cdr, R Cdr - all the way up to Zero Alpha.[/quote]
I agree however the only problem is all the fun stuff is all classed as “tactics” by the ACO which they wont let us teach as apparently thats for the Army which is a load of rubbish the RAF has changed so much in the last 10 years or so.
Hey Zinggy, expect all the “We aren’t the RAF though” brigade to come rushing in now.
Yeah, I know it’s ridiculous. If HQAC looked a little further than their looking glass which peeps over the ramparts of their ivory tower, they might see that Tactics is essentially a fantastic teaching tool, never mind subject. Tactics instills discipline, teamwork and camaraderie before it gets close to being a subject to be taught. Tactics can bring in observational skills, map reading elements, an ability to work under regulated pressure and even a tiny degree of PT. (Eek! he used the PT abbreviation. Without a PTI?? Burn him!!!)
I don’t get it? If you have a qualified SAAI, then why not. I’m one of three in my Wing. Three! Let’s get more trained.
Sorry for all the exclamation marks but this has urinated me off now for ages. My Sqn gets some “low-key” tactics training every now and again so…
The ACO is dominated by the RC’s, several who feel that Fieldcraft & Tactics isn’t an essential subject as we’re predominantly a ‘blue’ organization. For those who want to do the whole nine yards, they’ll point you in the direction of JL’s.
I firmly believe that the problem isn’t HQAC so much as the RC’s. One or two are pro-fieldcraft but the majority are anti for whatever reason. Personally, I feel its because they haven’t served for a large number of years and are still stuck in the 1970’s thinking the cold war is still going on. No doubt they feel that everyone is still a tradesman first and all the ground defence is done for them by the Regiment.
I know a VRT officer who wrote a full-on leadership course which involved B&P. It complied with all the publications and he himself has the SA(M)07 qualification. Guess what? It was refused as being of no value in relation to maintaining interest, retaining older cadets and intimated that it was worthless as a leadership tool.
So in essence, we have what we have in the form of ACP16 and are not permitted under any circumstances to deviate from it, add to it or otherwise make fieldcraft training as exciting as it could be.
Yeah im waiting for the we are not RAF types to come out but if thats the case why do the ACF get to do all the fun stuff I know loads of Cadets that would do anything to run around a traning ground with a rifle.
