MATTs
- Thread starter msr
- Start date
A 137 page document for MATT 2, how OTT is that?
Saw these posters spring up around our TAC last night.
Swapping Recognition for Navigation is a good idea i reckon, shame our regiment only has the one MAPRIC as far as i'm aware.
Overall though, my apprasial is... same shit... different name.
Wonder how much this rebranding exercise cost?
My £1E-2.
TB
Saw these posters spring up around our TAC last night.
Swapping Recognition for Navigation is a good idea i reckon, shame our regiment only has the one MAPRIC as far as i'm aware.
Overall though, my apprasial is... same shit... different name.
Wonder how much this rebranding exercise cost?
My £1E-2.
TB
First impressions, and thatâs all most of us can have at this stage, is that MATTs is an improvement over ITD(A)s.
All the real crowd pleasing training, Security, Health & Safety, Health, and Equality & Diversity has been put into the Workplace Induction Programme, so no need to run them for everyone each year. This will free up a lot of time for interesting training which helps retention.
MATT 2 â Fitness. It still shows the TA CFT as 4 miles. I thought this was going to change to 8 miles (as it should be).
I am a bit concerned by the picture on the front of the MATT 2. Do those hands and feet belong to the same chap? If so Iâm going to struggle to get to that level of flexibility.
DoE
All the real crowd pleasing training, Security, Health & Safety, Health, and Equality & Diversity has been put into the Workplace Induction Programme, so no need to run them for everyone each year. This will free up a lot of time for interesting training which helps retention.
MATT 2 â Fitness. It still shows the TA CFT as 4 miles. I thought this was going to change to 8 miles (as it should be).
I am a bit concerned by the picture on the front of the MATT 2. Do those hands and feet belong to the same chap? If so Iâm going to struggle to get to that level of flexibility.
DoE
I have mixed feelings - the documents themselves are excellent, and state what is required very clearly. If soldiers fail to meet the standards they get remedial training, retested and then AGAI 67 if they still fail. I mean, who can argue with that ?
BUT .... and it's a big but ... they appear to require more instructors and time than we're used to devoting to ITDs. It's not so much the testing, more the mandatory revision, remedial training and retesting.
The need for a qualified and in date CMT for the CFT(TA) for example, does every unit have one ? I know we don't. What OC or CO will hold a CFT(TA) without one knowing that if they have an incident they can be well and truly shafted by the system for failing to adhere to promulgated safety requirements ? If someone over 40 goes down on the CFT(TA) and the required programme of training from a qualified in date PTI has not been provided and adhered to then stand by for the compensation bells to ring (I mean, "So Col Blank, you went ahead knowing that you had not met the Army's laid down requirements for this activity ...")
And AGAI 67 is all well and good but if the unit hasn't provided remedial trg before the retest then that's a real get out of jail free card. I can't see any way out of making this main effort for a year or two, not least to get the instructors through the system.
BUT .... and it's a big but ... they appear to require more instructors and time than we're used to devoting to ITDs. It's not so much the testing, more the mandatory revision, remedial training and retesting.
The need for a qualified and in date CMT for the CFT(TA) for example, does every unit have one ? I know we don't. What OC or CO will hold a CFT(TA) without one knowing that if they have an incident they can be well and truly shafted by the system for failing to adhere to promulgated safety requirements ? If someone over 40 goes down on the CFT(TA) and the required programme of training from a qualified in date PTI has not been provided and adhered to then stand by for the compensation bells to ring (I mean, "So Col Blank, you went ahead knowing that you had not met the Army's laid down requirements for this activity ...")
And AGAI 67 is all well and good but if the unit hasn't provided remedial trg before the retest then that's a real get out of jail free card. I can't see any way out of making this main effort for a year or two, not least to get the instructors through the system.
Sorry msr, but I don't quite understand why you wrote your last post - surely people should be taking responsibility for their fitness - the BPFA and the 6-mile CFT which is 'an aspiration' according to the MATT documents on the website are not difficult tests, even for the out-of shape!
If people aren't keeping on top of their fitness they are failing in their duty as soldiers.
Or do you mean units will have to spend a lot of time re-testing/doing remedials on the ones who don't make the effort on fitness?
V
If people aren't keeping on top of their fitness they are failing in their duty as soldiers.
Or do you mean units will have to spend a lot of time re-testing/doing remedials on the ones who don't make the effort on fitness?
V
I don't. A Recognition MATT should be mandatory in teeth arms, and I'm not just speaking as an instructor in it. Recognition is an essential skill.
There should also be a Comms MATT . The standard of Comms at section level and above is appalling in my experience , or are we just going to take Comms as read, as everyone knows how to use a mobile? Are we going to rely on us Det. Commanders to identify those that need remedial radiowork , and then beg and plead to have class time with them? Believe me, appalling radio use is not restricted to the JR's.
A Comms MATT , with emphasis on C/S , VP and BATCO via PRR/349 should have been included.
There should also be a Comms MATT . The standard of Comms at section level and above is appalling in my experience , or are we just going to take Comms as read, as everyone knows how to use a mobile? Are we going to rely on us Det. Commanders to identify those that need remedial radiowork , and then beg and plead to have class time with them? Believe me, appalling radio use is not restricted to the JR's.
A Comms MATT , with emphasis on C/S , VP and BATCO via PRR/349 should have been included.
StabTiffy2B said:
I like the idea of adding navigation, but think that removing recognition is disasterous. One of our lads couldn't tell the difference between a Warrior and a Chally FFS 
I must admit that I didn't think about comms skills. It's a good idea. Anyone else have ideas on things they would like to see as a MATT?
Reading through it in a bit more detail, although it mentions the 6 mile CFT is an aspiration, it seems the 4 miler is here to stay for the time being.
I think it is positive that the rules are laid out in black and white, although I too am concerned what the standards will be like for things like recog and shooting.
I think it is positive that the rules are laid out in black and white, although I too am concerned what the standards will be like for things like recog and shooting.
Couple of interesting pointers:
Pressups Procedure (pg35)
"Rest periods are permissible as necessary...participants may adopt a rest position of their choice...but must return to the Start Position before resuming the test"
So I guess they binned the bit where you remain in the "pressup up" position, when resting.
'Excuse me PTI, I'm now going to assume my rest position, leaning over there against the wall'
A subtle lowering of standards?
Plus it's only 1 x PFT and 1 x CFT (TA) for TA units unless warned for Ops - which conflicts what our CoC have been briefing! Still, nothing like really terrifying the guys into working!
Oh, and "Attainment of higher standards than those required is a creditable goal which is to be encouraged, but this should not become a unit objective" - I'd love to know who writes this stuff, and whether they've visited any sort of training or field unit in the last ten years!
RSigsSTAB.
Pressups Procedure (pg35)
"Rest periods are permissible as necessary...participants may adopt a rest position of their choice...but must return to the Start Position before resuming the test"
So I guess they binned the bit where you remain in the "pressup up" position, when resting.
'Excuse me PTI, I'm now going to assume my rest position, leaning over there against the wall'
A subtle lowering of standards?
Plus it's only 1 x PFT and 1 x CFT (TA) for TA units unless warned for Ops - which conflicts what our CoC have been briefing! Still, nothing like really terrifying the guys into working!
Oh, and "Attainment of higher standards than those required is a creditable goal which is to be encouraged, but this should not become a unit objective" - I'd love to know who writes this stuff, and whether they've visited any sort of training or field unit in the last ten years!
RSigsSTAB.
MATTS is never goning to please everybody, recognition should stay in, with the basic, intermediate etc looked at , a chef in a recce regiment needing to know what a Merkava looks like .......
about time navigation got a look in, comms is a good call, then again it's horses for courses.
We'll just have to see & wait for it to change back to ITD(A)s again in a few years, on average 5!
about time navigation got a look in, comms is a good call, then again it's horses for courses.
We'll just have to see & wait for it to change back to ITD(A)s again in a few years, on average 5!
If you read the document and dredge through the detail you find that there are clear statements about what the unit must do prior to the tests. If Soldier X fails and his unit have not done what is required he can use that as an excuse. And the retest timescales are fairly short - especially for the TA.
On the one hand you agree that it should be encouraged and on the other you say it shouldnt be a unit objective, i dont quite follow that mentality?
If its to be encouraged then it should be firmly placed within the units objectives, at least then the idea can be driven home, whether its right to push people beyond the limit they are expected to achieve is another matter, but is it wrong for a commander to want the best soldiers he or she can have and expect the best standards from them?
Sounds to me like you agree that its a good thing that everyone passes the test but its not fair to make them leave their comfort zone
And the people that write these policies do actually spend time in training units etc, they certainly take a broad view of the Military when they make the decisions to change the standards, and it starts from training upwards
If its to be encouraged then it should be firmly placed within the units objectives, at least then the idea can be driven home, whether its right to push people beyond the limit they are expected to achieve is another matter, but is it wrong for a commander to want the best soldiers he or she can have and expect the best standards from them?
Sounds to me like you agree that its a good thing that everyone passes the test but its not fair to make them leave their comfort zone
And the people that write these policies do actually spend time in training units etc, they certainly take a broad view of the Military when they make the decisions to change the standards, and it starts from training upwards
fivetodo: I was quoting directly from the document, so it must be the authors who are confused!
I think it's perfectly fair to:
- encourage performance beyond the standards
- push people beyond their limits, where possible/willing.
But then we must accept that, in the TA, some will only ever do the minimum.
I think it's perfectly fair to:
- encourage performance beyond the standards
- push people beyond their limits, where possible/willing.
But then we must accept that, in the TA, some will only ever do the minimum.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Military Annual Training Tests (MATTS) | Health and Fitness | 2 | |
|
ITDs/MATTS Creating a Three Tier TA | Army Reserve | 42 | |
| W | MATTs replace ITDs | The Training Wing | 30 |
Similar threads
Latest Threads
-
-
-
-
USA as an Associate Member of the Commonwealth?- Started by Auld-Yin
- Replies: 17
-
Russian EW/Cyber doctrine
- Started by Escape-from-PPRuNe
- Replies: 0