Originally Posted by TopBadger

I'm with MSR on this one. It's daft reactionary policy to what was probably a one off incident.

H&S existed before the A2 and its BFA was worse than the current one. We seem to live in a culture that wants to put every risk to zero. It's nice in theory but rubbish in practice. Military training, by definition, is going to have hazardous parts.

So now our soldiers can't fire blank in training without all manner of paperwork/quals... but after 2 weeks at RMTC can be engaging targets for real in sandy places.

This just doesn't stack up.

Arrrggghhhh! The soldiers do not need paperwork or quals - the planning officer needs to write an EASP (as he has had to do for some time) so no change there then.

The only change is the need for the planning/conducting officer and certain staff to hold one of a variety of range quals or the new M Qual. Load the PSIs on to the courses immediately, along with as many Offrs/SNCOs as you can manage, and you are all back on track. One or two people away will not stop trade training continuing for the majority.

Stupid? Yes? Frustrating? Yes. Driven by H&S fanatics? Yes

Insurmountable? No.

Originally Posted by The_Duke

The only change is the need for the planning/conducting officer and certain staff to hold one of a variety of range quals or the new M Qual. Load the PSIs on to the courses immediately, along with as many Offrs/SNCOs as you can manage, and you are all back on track. One or two people away will not stop trade training continuing for the majority.

And herein lies the problem, it seems to be something of a lottery as to whether your unit/fmn can actually get places on any such courses! The outlook from LONDIST and 43bde is bleak, unless you have the time to go on the full 2-week AABCCS course at Brecon.

G_B

PM for you.

Duke

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

Originally Posted by The_Duke

The only change is the need for the planning/conducting officer and certain staff to hold one of a variety of range quals or the new M Qual. Load the PSIs on to the courses immediately, along with as many Offrs/SNCOs as you can manage, and you are all back on track. One or two people away will not stop trade training continuing for the majority.

And herein lies the problem, it seems to be something of a lottery as to whether your unit/fmn can actually get places on any such courses! The outlook from LONDIST and 43bde is bleak, unless you have the time to go on the full 2-week AABCCS course at Brecon.

And have heard bugger all from 49 (E) Bde.....

Originally Posted by The_Duke

My concern is the young Sapper (for example) who has been pushed through a very, very compressed PDT package and then gets attached to a rifle Coy in Helmand. He WILL expect to be involved in fire and movement at some stage in his tour.

How will we justify to his familiy, and the press, that he was trained and ready for that role on the basis of a few weeks at Chilwell if he is unfortunately killed, or kills another soldier whilst carrying out F&M on that tour?. "your son was an outstanding Sapper, whose bridge building and dems skills were first rate. Unfortunately we ran out of time when it came to teaching him how to shoot his weapon accurately, effectively and safely in a high tension, high stress environment".

The honest justification would be "we've been fighting two wars, for five years, on a peacetime budget, and we haven't got enough regular soldiers to do it. We're doing the best we can, but this Government refuses to fund its Armed Forces adequately for the jobs at hand."

The bridge needs built, so you either use a TA Sapper with good Cbt Engr qualifications but dubious LFTT, but who can at least be trusted with a rifle, or you use a civvy contractor on a huge wedge, who you probably need to watch like a hawk.

If you want well-trained tradesmen who are also well-trained field soldiers, you aren't going to get them from the TA (unless they're ex-regulars). There just isn't enough time available, so you have to choose which you need more.

There wasn't a great take up for places on the course I did, it was open to all 2Div units, had 64 slots to fill 23 people turned up, the only other one starts today, chances it being full to capacity?

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Which is more important to a R SIGNALS location - being able to kill the enemy from all positions out to 200m, or being able to operate and maintain all of their comms equipment? Because that's the capability that they should be providing to the Army.

I don't know any TA RSigs that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within the last few years. In fact our main operational role is to deploy without firearms, of those that have deployed they've gone to the Balkans (and next to Cyprus)

As you've stated trade skills have slipped because we are doing pointless rilfe training, the main thing rifle training offers is retention.

Originally Posted by polar

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Which is more important to a R SIGNALS location - being able to kill the enemy from all positions out to 200m, or being able to operate and maintain all of their comms equipment? Because that's the capability that they should be providing to the Army.

I don't know any TA RSigs that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within the last few years. In fact our main operational role is to deploy without firearms, of those that have deployed they've gone to the Balkans (and next to Cyprus)

As you've stated trade skills have slipped because we are doing pointless rilfe training, the main thing rifle training offers is retention.

Polar,

That post just beggars belief. Pointless rifle training? Ask MSR, who deployed as a R Sigs capbadged officer to Iraq, whether he thought being able to use a rifle safely was "pointless". I do not know whether he used his, but I bet he was glad that he had that option.

I am sure that he can also point out many other R Sigs people who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just because it doesn't happen within your line of sight does not mean it is not happening.

Originally Posted by The_Duke

That post just beggars belief. Pointless rifle training? Ask MSR, who deployed as a R Sigs capbadged officer to Iraq, whether he thought being able to use a rifle safely was "pointless". I do not know whether he used his, but I bet he was glad that he had that option.

I am sure that he can also point out many other R Sigs people who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes I know they have but not recently (2-3 years). Yes they will need rifle training for the Cyprus tour but they are deploying as infantry.

I know it looks like a complete b*ll*cks statement but rifle training is a nice to have not a must have.

When I last went to a likely operational location, I unrealistically went on a off road wagon (mountain bike) but I was undercover as I had to go via an area where 7/7 bombers came from (shirt and tie)

A soldier saying that rifle training is nice to have not a must have?

For once, words fail me.