Can OCdts attend CMCQ and RMQ courses? :S

Discussion in 'The Training Wing' started by WelshGuy, Dec 9, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi, Just a quick question, Can OCdt's attend CMCQ and RMQ courses? I haven’t been able to get a definitive answer. Cheers.
  2. PAM 21 says no.

    The minimum rank for CMCQ is LCpl, for RMQ it's Cpl. There's even a paragraph stating that OCdts are not permitted to take SAA courses
  3. Thank the lord for that!
  4. Even if you could attend the courses, there's still the obstacle of the minimum rank requirement to use the qualification. Not much use doin RMQ if you couldn't run ranges - you'd be better placed doing a stand-alone sub-unit coach or safety-supervisor course.
  5. ... Was told that OCdts leave RMAS qualified to run ranges?

    Is this not the case?
  6. RMQ is part of the Sandhurst qualification so is irrelevant for regulars, however I think there is a case to be made for TA OCdts though, who may be in the system for some time..
  7. If they leave sandhurst still as a cadet, there is something wrong somewhere!!

  8. When TA OCdts leave Sandhurst they're either Commissioned or failed. In the first case, the question's no longer relevant: in the second, they're at best still OCdts and IMO lack suitable authority to run live-firing practices.
  9. After Sandhurst all officers leave with the 'B' Qualification which allows you to run static live-fire ranges. Oddly enough, new changes to Pam 21 mean that a 'B' qual cannot plan and run BLANK ranges!

    Join the infantry and you'll do the 'A' course as well which allows you to plan and run Life Fire Tactical Training - Field Firing ranges.
  10. I think that a big point is being missed here!

    The true officerlike skill is (like me) to be stripped of such qualifications. Long hours spent clutching a range script and megaphone in a concrete hut smelling of wee having to toady to a gollum-like octogenarian range staff jobsworth never were my type of fun.

    It's much more fun to be the firer, for heaven's sake. Failing that it is important to observe how your soldiers are with weapons - competent, accurate, nervous, etc.

    Seriously, IMHO, the officer should be talent spotting, coaching, observing and using range time to help and learn about his soldiers in a crucial environment. That's leadership. Running a range is a comparatively functional task that should be left in the hands of an expert who doesn't giggle when they read the words 'double exposure.'

    So my hypothesis is that a SAA RMQ should be held by officers but never used unless necessary (like holding an FMT). This is more or less the case anyway.

    The notion of OCdts having such qualifications is risible. That's one of the many reasons why permanent staff are established in such units.
  11. I agree with much of your post. This is why I love the infantry. All officers and Sgts are Range 'A' qual'd. This means you can all plan and run ranges. Even static ranges mean that the Pl Sgt or OC can run the range while the other cuts about and coaches.

    Compare this to RM where they have a PW Branch. Only those who are PW1 are Range 'A' qual'd. This means that in a Bn sized unit they might have 5 or 6 people qualified to conduct field firing. Certainly where I am now this is a massive problem. One of our Troops booked a field-firing package only for all 3 of the qualified personnel to either be on leave or ill when it came about. I then had to jump in and plan their ranges. Their own officers and seniors were not qualified to do it!
  12. IMHO all this faff about RMQ for static ranges is nonsence...

    Organising and running a fixed point range should be within the abilities of any officer. In the "old days" the system was that the CO would publish whom he considered fit to run ranges on Pt 1 orders. This allowed the totally incompetant or potential psychopaths to be filtered out and allowed flexible use of the facilities.

    On a parallel theme, I think it is high time that the "Inf Only" limitation on running FF ranges should go. Everyone these days needs to train on FF ranges as a matter of course. In many cases it is the poor loggie on a combat logistic patrol that is most likely to get shot at/blown up and would benefit most from realistic field firing training.

    My suggestion is that all officers should come out of the factory qualified to plan and supervise FF (which does need to be taught I agree), and that the supervision of fixed firing point ranges, which frankly doesn't, to be at the discretion of the CO.

    We really need to cut back on some of this useless web of qualifications. If you expect an officier to control fire in a battle situation then they should at least be expected to be able do this on a range without further specialist training and qualification.
  13. What I find amusing with the new changes is that you can conduct a range with live ammo but not an exercise with blank, or have I picked this up wrong?
  14. What Inf Only limitation? I hold an A qual, and I not Inf.
  15. IMHO there's a big difference between controlling fire(s) and running a range. One's an essential military skill, the other is the facilitation of a safe training environment in which to practice that skill. Command appointments (not necessarily Offrs) should concentrate on the former.

    But HE117 is right - range running is a skill that must be constructively devolved down to sub-unit level otherwise you'll never get the staff. But it should reside with the right people.

    I would have welcomed RMQ/SAA/NBC/AFV recog/LOAC/Map Reading Instructor skills (plus countless others) in a proportionately higher number of my SNCOs as it would have enriched their careers and made writing CRs so much easier.