MATTS Levels

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by outlaw666, Mar 9, 2011.

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. Ok so who decides what MATTS level we train at? Is it the CO? Is it a JSP? Is it TA Regs?

    Totally hyperthetical senario:
    Not warned off for ops, CO says everyone must achive MATTS level 1. Is this legal?

    Who to speak to if its not?

  2. IMOO it's the COs trainset, if he wants you to level 1 then level 1 you must achieve......we do as we're told to it's an army thing.
  3. He'll be bloody lucky. The gap between MATT 2 and 1 is pretty big. I'd love to know where he intends to find the additional MTDs and range time to bring people up to scratch..
    Expect to be in doing a lot of unpaid training!
  4. That's his headache though if he wants to achieve level 1...he'll soon realise why there are 3 levels and that generally we are on level 3, Outlaw is he new in post?
  5. No he's not new in post.
    His training directive states he wants ALL pers trained to MATT Level 1. To be fair most have achived this. Im more interested in the legal side. For instance if Soldier X has passed LF3 (MATT1) all that is required for level 2 but fails to get bounty as not passed ACMT (required for Level 1). Has he a case against the CO?
  6. It is the CO's decision. TA Regulations para 2.058a.

    In your example above soldier X would have no legal recourse against the CO or vicariously against the MOD.
  7. I say fair play to your CO, hes making you work hard for your bounty.
    Are you upset because you have to do a couple of boring MATTS lectures and an 8 miles CFT. Or is it the fact you can't pass 2 pft's.

    If you want that good old tax free sum then im sure you will go out of your way to take training as C1.
  8. Agreed and I can see more COs taking this approach in the future.
  9. Not at all. I have no problem in principle doing MATT level 1. To be honest most people who have been in even a short lenght of time should be able to achive level 1, after all the difference betweeen level 1 and 2 isnt much. As I said before I am more interested in the legal side. Soldier X who is 50+ and excused CFT due to age wont get bounty. Even though soldier X is only required to pass CFT when mobilising for ops. What is the point of stating the level of MATTS and the criteria if they can be ignored by the headshead. I can see a lot of 'enablers' voting with thier feet and I dont blame them. Not that I advocate paper passed just sticking to whats put onto paper and displayed around the TAC.
  10. Well they're going to have to, to differentiate themselves if they want their units to survive.

  11. Then said CO can expect a smaller battalion as the number of people who can turn up for free shrinks. Also said CO can expect some hard questions on why his unit is spending so much time and MONEY on training that it's not manadated or budgeted to do.

    Love it or loathe it GCM kinda puts a cap on a CO's freedom to do what he feels like.
  12. I understand where your coming from but what use is a 50+ year old to the army if he can't pass MATT level 1.
    I find most of what the old fellas do is drive the vehicles around on weekends or in the stores folding blankets.
    some people just need a little hint when to hang the boots up.

    Those enablers you speak off I find out of touch with the rest of the blokes when on weekend exercise not training recruits. Most of those enablers failed the 8 mile cft that my battalion done 2 weeks ago, within the first 3 miles.
    Looking on the MATT sheet list they are the first ones to have all ticks in boxes aswell. Its like they paper pass themselves.
    How are they aloud to train recruits
  13. If they're the only bodies available to train recruits then their unit needs to have a good hard look in the mirror...;-)

    As to the value of enablers......

    Not so long again you could spend all weekend awake tabbing up and down Mount Catterick and then drive the 4 tonner home at Sunday on a Mars bar and a ropey sandwich. Then the rules of civi street started creeping in. Drivers started having to drop out of any training that took place over Saturday night to get 8 hours rest, the drivers hours during the week had to be factored in to make sure people who drove for a living didn't get fucked about.

    We're now in the position that we end up needing people who can drive to hang on a bit longer so that the unit can get out of the front gates in a oner.
  14. They certainly shouldn'd be training recruits and in my bn they wouldnt be. The enablers Im on about are the clerks and storemen who without which the bn wouldnt run. Case in point, our bn sacked a bloke because he was 'to old' actully it was face fit thing but he wasnt the only one to go. The next weekend suddenly the bn cant move because all the minibus drivers have been sacked. The MATT level thing is designed to take into account these requirements. MATT Level 1= fighting fit bayonett who is going to deploy or is able to deploy. MATT level 2= Recovered from ops/not going on ops any time soon MATT level 3= fat knacker in stores/office never going on ops but unit wont work without (or will work but its a lot harder). This is a very simplistic view but what the mATT level thing was disigned for IMO.
  15. Is this the same sketch with the current trend of "Key Weekends" that seems to be developing in the TA? CO's decision?

    Basically with-holding bounty for not attending certain weekends, which rather than being used to boost training weekends are generally used to boost numbers on the shit weekends that nobody goes to?