The reason for doing it on the firing point has a few aspects:
1 - The filling is supervised by a qualified safety supervisor who is current and competent on the CWS so knows how to correctly fill a mag. Qualified staff aren’t often just floating about to supervise away from the firing point.
The mag goes in a pouch once full and is then used under the supervision of the SS with any loose rounds, ejected rounds or unused rounds noticed and dealt with.
The SS can ensure the firers have the correct ammunition and split for the practice they are about to fire, something the SS and firer are briefed on, other range participants may not be.
Lots of ranges have rules about waiting details not having ammo.
If we can’t put rounds in a mag on a nice ranges then how are we to ever progress to doing it in the field? A lot say ‘i don’t want to use the weapon in the field’ but unfortunately the pamphlet is written to train cadets to that point including things like muscle memory of filling magazines quickly and accurately.
What you see as nonsense is a rule, is this endemic of our organisation and the views of ‘that’s stupid so I’m not doing it’?
Unfortunately over and over again we see CFAVs get caught out with that attitude and it’s why the senior leadership are often restiscent to give us more rope. All we do is tie ourselves in knots with the bit they do give us.
Agreed. Unfortunately there are significant parts of policy which are nonsense.
Prime example: the third section in the declaration (the one about amnesty boxes being available in all units). This is simply wrong.
Other examples: the idea that an “Exercise Director” is going to tell someone to run an Air Rifle range in a squadron is simply not what happens in practice. The whole planning process is actually the other way up in this org: PO decides they’re going to offer the activity, SPO agrees it’s a good idea and safe, ED maybe acknowledges but likely has no idea it’s even happening.
These sorts of things all lead to an acceptance that the policy is written for … not us … and then poorly edited with insufficient thought to what actually happens. Therefore there is an acceptance that what the policy says and what actually happens is different.
There shouldn’t be. But to have that, we need policy that reflects what we do, not what other organisations do.
What if I told you it’s possible to follow a rule whilst also thinking it’s utter nonsense?
The percentage of air cadets that actually get to a point where they will be filling magazines in the field is so infinitesimally small that it is stupid to waste time on a rare shooting day in the hope of building muscle memory for an event that’s never going to happen.
Exactly this. If the aim is to teach cadets how to quickly and effectively fill a mag, then they can surely do that with drill rounds whilst not shooting?
Also, surely it’s safer for an ammunition orderly (or what ever they’re called) to fill the mags and issue to cadets once they’re on the firing point? It means more time can be spent putting lead down range too!
This would be my argument as well.
Not issuing the ammo to a waiting detail, but having a single person responsible for all the loose ammunition in a controlled place.
Yes, the cadets lose the experience of filling a mag. Yes, we never have drill rounds available for training. But would it be the end of the world if cadets never filled mags and that was always the responsibility of an ammo orderly (even in the field with blanks, in the rare places it happens)?
None of my exercise experience has had cadets bombing up where they’re firing. I’ve always been sat or seen them sat in a nice little cushty reorg post/pre patrol…
This is however part of the ongoing problem of treating volunteers like they are in the military where stupid rules are par for the course. Many of our volunteers work in occupations where challenging stupidity and using your initiative to make things work better are encouraged, they can’t be expected to turn that off just because HQAC always so.
Having stupid rules like this set in stone which could instead be a guideline or a “best practice” only encourages people to break the rules and that’s a slippery slope to encourage people to be on.
I’m not really into shooting, but at the end of the day I’m a stickler for policy (as you all well know!..)
This is one of those policies/rules that really makes no sense to me. And if I was involved more directly with shooting, I’d be pushing back hard. It just seems a bit silly for what we deliver as a cadet organisation, even if it makes sense for the regulars.
ref my post above. If the reason is to practise mag filling, then lets practise with drill rounds. Certainly when I last did L98 training (probably 10 odd years ago…?) we had to load a mag within a certain time with drill rounds. So we practised it during training.
At the end of the end of the day, if CTR says cadet’s must fill their own magazines whilst on the firing point, then that’s what needs to happen. Of all the policies to break, CTR isn’t one I’d be willing to budge on, even if I disagree with it.
At the end of the day. If they want to bin staff for checks notes filling magazines themselves, they can fill their boots
Your argument pretends that all rules are equal, they are not, and stupid rules that make no sense should be challenged and, where no harm can come of not following it, ignore them.
Its like making webbing a requirement to shoot. It is stupid, it was always stupid, and it will always be stupid, and I have NEVER seen it enforced on an air cadet range.
Disagree - on the Long Range Shoots I use multiple Make Safes when changing from one position to another. That way I can issue 1 or 2 mags for the whole practice, but ensure the cadets are not moving between position with a ‘Ready’ weapon.
They may not make sense to you but do to others.
Of course rules can (and should be challenged) but until the point they are changed the policy should be followed.
I was just pointing out my experience of it being largely pointless in the scenarios I used it. I just never really saw why I’d ever need to unload the rifle, then immediately load it again, mid-shoot.
It wasn’t until I used a rifle outside of the range that I realised why the drill exists, albeit it became one we came to dread. As you had to do it in the dark, while tired, trusting to another tired cadet with a red torch to check the breach was empty. I’ve known of more than a few NDs on return to harbour!
And on the subject of ignoring rules like this, what’s going to happen if you do? Nothing. And this is the problem with stupid rules which make no sense, if a rule has no logical basis, it won’t get followed, that’s true in nearly every walk of life I’ve encountered, be it cadets, criminal law, the myriad of stupid COVID rules shops came up with, anything.
The problem therefore does not lie with the person who ignores a stupid rule, but the person who writes it in the first place. They’re the ones encouraging non-compliance by not thinking about what they’re putting in place.
It’s that mindset it promotes. How quickly does it escalate to one being ignored that does affect safety?
We don’t really need to remove the weapons to get in and out of a fire trench do we? It’s quicker……
Edit…
Were the Rules followed to correctly report them? Or ignored to save time? What if it was a faulty batch of ammo?
I don’t agree with that. Its an argument that’s trotted out, but it’s not based in logic, its a standard ‘slippery slope’ argument, and those are largely not seen in reality.
The very fact that someone can see the rule is stupid, and ignore it as a result, means they’re thinking, and if they’re thinking, they are less likely to ignore safety critical rules.