TA Regulations - any point any more?

#1
Is there any point in having these any more as there is no way they can be updated to reflect the unending stream of changes which are forced on the TA?

msr
 
#2
The only things in life that are certain are death, taxes and change.
Times are changing, and we must change with them, the TA Regs were written a while ago, it may be time to review them. Or do what they do with pamphlets - issue amendments that pile up in the store until Pte Bloggs has a spare MTD and spends a day inserting them into the Pams!! Oh the joys!!
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#3
You have good point. QRR might need a bit of tweaking to include the TA but is there a need for separate regs?
 
#4
I'm amazed we even bother with TA Regs, seeing as the vast majority of the NRPS / Reg staff, ie PSI's either don't know them, don't bother with them or even worse fcukin make the rules up to suit!!!

From bitter experience, try and point out what they are doing is actually contrary to TA Regs, ........ :roll:
 
#5
As I understand it, they are being looked at just right now. Thing is, they do offer some interesting opportunities, if only people read them....without them, will we not finally be part time regulars?
 
#6
Wingletang said:
As I understand it, they are being looked at just right now. Thing is, they do offer some interesting opportunities, if only people read them....without them, will we not finally be part time regulars?
We already are. One example: JPA. No mention in TA regs for the requirement to use JPA for MS matters, just a simple form. Try telling that to your Adjt...

msr

3.265. Reports are to be completed as outlined below:
a. TA Recruits and Trainees. Recruits & Trainees do not require CRs during their first 2 years of training. However, they are to receive reports from training establishment staff for the TA CMS(R) and Phase 2 courses. In addition, unit recruit training staff should maintain continuous assessments during the TA Foundation Skills training and while soldiers are completing the balance of Phase 1 training after completion of the TA CMS(R) course.

b. TA Private Soldiers. Private soldiers are to receive their first CR on an AF B2047(TA) at the end of their third TA Training Year.

c. OTC Officer Cadets. CRs are not required for OTC officer cadets. However, candidates for a commission will require a pre-RMAS report.

d. TA Lance Corporals and above. All TA NCOs and Wos are to receive an annual CR at the end of each TA Training Year.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#7
So TA Regs lag behind the changes in MS activity and requirements? No great surprises there. Do you propose to dig your heels in on the grounds of the "but the TA regs say so, and we've always done it this way" defence?

If you follow that logic we should also dispose of all pamphlets because there is usually a time lag between the identification of the need for an amendment, the drafting of said amendment, approval, printing, circulation and the biggest lag of all - updating the pamphlet.
 
#8
Not at all, but a single point of reference, kept up to date, would be very welcome.

It could also serve as a conduit for all the changes which are coming through the system and affecting the TA.

Happy to see them presented online (the armynet ones are one edition behind the times :( ) with the changes made accordingly.

Would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling that someone is actually tracking all the changes which flow in an unending stream from LAND.

msr
 
#9
msr said:
Not at all, but a single point of reference, kept up to date, would be very welcome.

It could also serve as a conduit for all the changes which are coming through the system and affecting the TA.

Happy to see them presented online (the armynet ones are one edition behind the times :( ) with the changes made accordingly.

Would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling that someone is actually tracking all the changes which flow in an unending stream from LAND.

msr
I would agree with most of the comments already expressed on this thread. There are always classic examples of out of date training/ pam's contradicting what someone else has just taught/ told you (OntheBus may be aware of one to do with the medics at our Bde HQ at present as an example). What is absolutely insane is that on ArmyNet's own websites, School of I for example, have advice and information that is years out of date (courses and the like). Surely, it is not beyond the whit of man to insist that all units keep their Army Net pages up to date and that there all PAMS are kept in PDF format, up to date, ready for downloading with an email alert to inform units/ sub units/ individuals of changes? Or am I being ridiculously naive? :?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
The_Duke said:
So TA Regs lag behind the changes in MS activity and requirements? No great surprises there. Do you propose to dig your heels in on the grounds of the "but the TA regs say so, and we've always done it this way" defence?

If you follow that logic we should also dispose of all pamphlets because there is usually a time lag between the identification of the need for an amendment, the drafting of said amendment, approval, printing, circulation and the biggest lag of all - updating the pamphlet.
There is a difference between Regulations and Pamphlets. The former have the force of law behind them and the latter are training aids.

The problem that has been suggested is that people are being asked to do things that run contrary to TA Regs in order to fit in with a badly programed computer system.

As I said earlier on I cannot see any reason to continue with TA Regs but QRR will need tweaking to reflect the needs of the reserve element.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#11
BuggerAll said:
The_Duke said:
So TA Regs lag behind the changes in MS activity and requirements? No great surprises there. Do you propose to dig your heels in on the grounds of the "but the TA regs say so, and we've always done it this way" defence?

If you follow that logic we should also dispose of all pamphlets because there is usually a time lag between the identification of the need for an amendment, the drafting of said amendment, approval, printing, circulation and the biggest lag of all - updating the pamphlet.
There is a difference between Regulations and Pamphlets. The former have the force of law behind them and the latter are training aids.

Ever enjoyed(!) a LAIT investigation? Try telling them that Pam 21 is only a training aid!

The problem that has been suggested is that people are being asked to do things that run contrary to TA Regs in order to fit in with a badly programed computer system.

Shock horror! Outdated regulations vs useless computer systems are not a new (or strictly) TA phenomenon.

As I said earlier on I cannot see any reason to continue with TA Regs but QRR will need tweaking to reflect the needs of the reserve element.

One set of regulations is perfectly sensible, and the right way forward. Of course, people will have to break out the black armbands for the loss of a "TA specific" way of doing things.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#12
I take your point about PAM 21 but what would happen if you told the investigators that you did not follow Pam 21 because you were following 'current practise'.

Why would you imagine that there would be any sadness at getting rid of TA specific ways of doing things? What people are saying is that they are not happy about being asked to do things that run contrary to regulations. If you want things done differently then change the regulations.
 
#13
Probably over simplistic but why not just re-categorise the TA once and for all as 'ready reservists' or some such name and re-write QR's to accommodate both full and part time soldiers?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#14
Until a suggested new practice is accepted for inclusion in Pam 21, then it is an incorrect practice - no matter how much sense it makes to you. I am sure that there are more experienced SASC bods who will know the detail better than I do, but I would suggest using "current practice" as a defence for not following Pam 21 leads to a loss of qualification (at best).

I take it your second paragraph was tongue in cheek? There are people on here who would have the State in mourning for every single change to the TA, no matter how much it is needed or how relevant to capability.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
The_Duke said:
Until a suggested new practice is accepted for inclusion in Pam 21, then it is an incorrect practice - no matter how much sense it makes to you. I am sure that there are more experienced SASC bods who will know the detail better than I do, but I would suggest using "current practice" as a defence for not following Pam 21 leads to a loss of qualification (at best).
That is the point I'm making. You seem happy to abandon one set of regulations but not another. Who gets to choose which regulations we should follow and which are inconvenient?

The_Duke said:
I take it your second paragraph was tongue in cheek? There are people on here who would have the State in mourning for every single change to the TA, no matter how much it is needed or how relevant to capability.
I'm sure there are but its not my experience of the TA in general. In fact most resistance to change I come across is from the regular side.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#16
In the example given by msr (annual reporting), the regulations state who needs an annual report, and which form it should be on. JPA has now superceded that form. No avoidance of regulations, just the acceptance that the regulations have not been updated yet to accept the new format of data capture. The act has not changed, merely the recording medium. Hardly enough to get worked up about. That is the difference wetween service wide adoption of a computer system and one particular RCO deciding that his "current practice" supercedes Pam 21. Again, I believe we are in agreement - a single set of regulations for the army with specific caveats for reg/reserve is the way forward.

As for resistance to change, I would suggest you look back over the TA forum. Some people have elevated it to an art form.
 
#17
The_Duke said:
No avoidance of regulations, just the acceptance that the regulations have not been updated yet to accept the new format of data capture. The act has not changed, merely the recording medium.
This is not strictly true, as (almost) everyone needs an annual appraisal, not just after 3 years.

msr
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#18
So? Are you trying to tell me that doing NSARs for soldiers you have barely seen, and know will probably not be here for their next NSAR is not what you joined the TA for? :wink:
 
#19
Can only use the NSAR format this year... All on JPA next year.

Roll on my posting to ERE :)

msr
 
#20
The_Duke said:
So? Are you trying to tell me that doing NSARs for soldiers you have barely seen, and know will probably not be here for their next NSAR is not what you joined the TA for? :wink:
Our Bde specifies that all soldiers who have pass their recruits course and have been training for longer than six months will receive an MPAR and a SJAR. Those which have trained for less than 11 days (don't ask me why) do not receive either, however will do have to complete the JPA paperwork all the same...

I seem to spend most of my waking hours at present doing one form of MS or another :-(

Though with the forthcoming cull of low attenders on the immediate horizon at least part of this problem will be solved as we dump the sick, lame, lazy and bounty hunters for good.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads