Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PNCO Course East

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DeV
    replied
    Hopefully this will not effect the RDF (but of course it will), but if they are talking about this will it mean that they are going to be still awaiting promotion afterwards?

    http://pdforra.ie/news/?p=501

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonesy
    replied
    Stands to reason what Marty just said.

    If someone hasn't gotten to the required standard as a private, then how can they hope to make the giant leap to to NCO?

    Granted, I know that its not as simple and straight forward in the RDF to get there because of other commitments - work being the main one for time off - but if someone is not up to the level, then don't be sending them on the course.

    Its a no-brainer, but too often people are sending ill prepared troops on these courses, and they either a) fail OR b) can't cut it as an NCO because they are out of their depth.

    But like someone pointed out there is a Directive from Reserve Training that states a private needs x,y,z as a three star. But there is nobody putting in the effort behind the scenes to get them trained up to it. And so you're left trying to put a square peg into a round hole because of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • ltsmarty
    replied
    Considering the 3* has to serve 2 years before commencing a PNCO course (according to the 07 syllabi), surely there is ample time to complete the 5 syllabi ?, and throw in the Support Weapons ?

    If there are no 3*'s, then that finishes the argument on unprepared PNCO's !......

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ltsmarty View Post
    But has there been any effort to attempt it ?...approach the Reserve CIS unit ?, approach your parent PDF Unit ?
    We have run these syllabaii in the past (and I think currently) but there has been more focus on support weapons.

    There is an assumption that there are 3*s.

    Leave a comment:


  • ltsmarty
    replied
    "It isn't always possible to run it due to lack of resources (in this case instructors and radios)."

    But has there been any effort to attempt it ?...approach the Reserve CIS unit ?, approach your parent PDF Unit ?


    "Completing continuation training isn't complusory for PNCOs.... IMHO SINCGARS operation, VP, Occupational/Basic First Aid (a proper course/module) are vital soldiering skills and should be part of either the recruit or 2*-3* syllabaii. "

    These are why the continuation modules were created, but its obvious that they are ignored in your Unit ?, because there not compulsory. What do you do with 3* after they complete their 2-3* syllabus ?...send them immediatley on a PNCO Course ?

    All NCO courses, except for PNCO, are not compulsory for Pot Officers, yet most NCO's complete these courses to personally upskill themselves, and give them a proper grounding for the next step.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ltsmarty View Post
    Sigs Training -

    Are Reservists aware of the 3* Continuation Trg Syllabi, rolled out in 06, in which 1 of the 5 syllabi focussed on Sigs ?

    So, no excuses, other than pure laziness for all Officers & NCO's for not availing of these Syllabi.
    These were the first attempt at tackling Retention issues by D Res.
    It isn't always possible to run it due to lack of resources (in this case instructors and radios).

    Completing continuation training isn't complusory for PNCOs.... IMHO SINCGARS operation, VP, Occupational/Basic First Aid (a proper course/module) are vital soldiering skills and should be part of either the recruit or 2*-3* syllabaii.

    Leave a comment:


  • trellheim
    replied
    And it is a prerequisite for the new Reconnaisance course that you can operate a SINCGAR

    Leave a comment:


  • ltsmarty
    replied
    Sigs Training -

    Are Reservists aware of the 3* Continuation Trg Syllabi, rolled out in 06, in which 1 of the 5 syllabi focussed on Sigs ?

    So, no excuses, other than pure laziness for all Officers & NCO's for not availing of these Syllabi.
    These were the first attempt at tackling Retention issues by D Res.

    Leave a comment:


  • SwiftandSure
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Agreed on the rest, but there is no requirement for the above until Std NCOs Course (there should be but there isn't).
    On the recent assessments, we were out on a 4 man recce patrol, lead by an inexperienced Cpl. No one in the patrol was signals trained. Had we lost comms mid-mission, it could have been very embarrassing. Radio work is a key part of soldiering.

    No comms, no war.

    There is also no "BPT" in the Defence Forces!
    Semantics. Basic Fitness Tests is what I was getting at.

    It is impossible to be posted non-effective in your first year so it would be the years 2 & 3 of your engagement (assuming you have under 12 years service).

    Section 243 - it is desertation/AWOL (depending on the circumstances) and can be either tried by court marshal (and punished accordingly) or on conviction in District Court a fine of up to €2,000. And it doesn't matter if you are effective or non-effective!
    Yes, but what I'm saying is, if someone isn't bothering to turn up for training, then what good are they to you in an emergency even if you did drag them kicking and screaming into your ranks? (A practice that would drain more resources than would it add).

    I'm sure Johnny Student, who long gave up the RDF, passing it off as a phase and is instead experimenting with every drug available to him and hitting every bar hard that has a student night promotion, wouldn't give a flying fúck if the RDF came knocking at his door saying he was needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by SwiftandSure View Post
    tune and operate a radio
    Agreed on the rest, but there is no requirement for the above until Std NCOs Course (there should be but there isn't).

    There is also no "BPT" in the Defence Forces!

    I think if you had a ratio of 1:5 JNCOs to Ptes, you'd be laughing.
    Agreed!


    Do you really see non-effectives turning up to a call up? I don't. Why oh why, if you've not been available for training over the last two years, (and probably you're first 2 years at that) would you respond to a call up? Any non-effective soldier would be exactly that in a national crisis, NON-EFFECTIVE.
    It is impossible to be posted non-effective in your first year so it would be the years 2 & 3 of your engagement (assuming you have under 12 years service).

    Section 243 - it is desertation/AWOL (depending on the circumstances) and can be either tried by court marshal (and punished accordingly) or on conviction in District Court a fine of up to €2,000. And it doesn't matter if you are effective or non-effective!

    Leave a comment:


  • SwiftandSure
    replied
    Originally posted by morpheus View Post
    I feel I have to defend myself and a few others here , yet strangely agree with some points raised now...
    And you're not wrong Morpheus. If you can't slot into every position in a section, tune and operate a radio, apply a field dressing, pass a BFT, shoot a decent group at 200m with your personal weapon, march correctly, and read a map, then you shouldn't be on a POTs course. End of.

    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    To give an example my battalion is drastically short of corporals IMHO, a couple of years ago there was a recruit platoon of 40 (at various levels of training) and only 2/3 corporals!
    I think if you had a ratio of 1:5 JNCOs to Ptes, you'd be laughing.

    A vacancy is always there especially in the RDF, if we are called up (could potentially happen if the major public unrest (a even more possible due to reduced Garda & PDF numbers) remember the the non-effectives will be called up too!)
    Do you really see non-effectives turning up to a call up? I don't. Why oh why, if you've not been available for training over the last two years, (and probably you're first 2 years at that) would you respond to a call up? Any non-effective soldier would be exactly that in a national crisis, NON-EFFECTIVE.
    The quote "a bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush" comes to mind when thinking about the effective strength of the RDF.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by SwiftandSure View Post
    Of course they can. My unit, despite being a Bn on paper can barely field a Pln in reality. On paper, as a Bn, we could have around 50+ JNCOs; in reality if we did, they'd far outnumber our Ptes. The unit could send someone on the pots and pencil him/her in for IC, 2 Sect, 3 Pln, A Coy, of xBn but in reality the section and Platoon don't exist because there isn't enough soldiers to justify such a large formation of troops.
    Which is the point I'm trying to make, If you already have a 1:1 Ratio of NCO to Pte, then surely you're better off placing a value on producing a better standard of Pte, rather than sending those Ptes off on a Pots course to become substandard NCOs. This gives the existing NCOs an opportunity to exercise their skills and leadership abilities with more troops to lead, rather than saturating their ranks with more of the same.
    I agree to a point, but it depends on the NCOs (if you have a full strength of SNCOs and sergeants but no corporals that isn't good). You have to remember career planning, eg our battalion had only very small numbers on Pot Officers courses as long as I've been an NCO and we are not very short of Lts.

    We need a much higher ratio of junior NCOs to privates, for example you will usually have at least 3 training categories (recruit, 2* and 3* - never mind module 1 recruits, module 2 recruits, module 1 2*s & module 2 2*s).

    To give an example my battalion is drastically short of corporals IMHO, a couple of years ago there was a recruit platoon of 40 (at various levels of training) and only 2/3 corporals!

    A vacancy is always there especially in the RDF, if we are called up (could potentially happen if the major public unrest (a even more possible due to reduced Garda & PDF numbers) remember the the non-effectives will be called up too!)
    Last edited by DeV; 29 November 2010, 12:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • morpheus
    replied
    I feel I have to defend myself and a few others here , yet strangely agree with some points raised now...

    Those 4 of us (from my unit anyway) have been in for years. one lads done 8 years myself and another bloke have 6 and the last person has 4 years. I refused until this year to go on the course as I wanted more experience as a private. it stood to me, i noticed other pnco's struggle with the hardships and learning curve.

    patrols, patrol harbour occupation, platoon in attack and role changing in section in attack are areas you need to have decent experience in notwithstanding having the ability to push through the various pain/tiredness barriers and taking it in the neck when things go wrong. Also would recommend either do a radio operators course OR at least pay attention to the comms lessons you will do as a private. some peoples radio voice procedure was muck. final point, for the love of god, learn how to read a map and use a compass!!! again if id only been in 2 years and gone for this I KNOW i would have struggled.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snacker
    replied
    Originally posted by SwiftandSure View Post
    Of course they can. My unit, despite being a Bn on paper can barely field a Pln in reality. On paper, as a Bn, we could have around 50+ JNCOs; in reality if we did, they'd far outnumber our Ptes. The unit could send someone on the pots and pencil him/her in for IC, 2 Sect, 3 Pln, A Coy, of xBn but in reality the section and Platoon don't exist because there isn't enough soldiers to justify such a large formation of troops.
    Which is the point I'm trying to make, If you already have a 1:1 Ratio of NCO to Pte, then surely you're better off placing a value on producing a better standard of Pte, rather than sending those Ptes off on a Pots course to become substandard NCOs. This gives the existing NCOs an opportunity to exercise their skills and leadership abilities with more troops to lead, rather than saturating their ranks with more of the same.

    TBH, if I had my way, in the regular army, it would take 3 years on average to be considered for promotion (and that was just for L/Cpl in the BA!); but in the reserve, with the low volume and tempo of training we do, it should really be 5 years before a Pte is considered eligible to be promoted. There should be a degree of prestige associated to the rank of Cpl, not entitlement! Making someone work 5 years for it, would bring that about.
    100% correct SAS!

    Leave a comment:


  • SwiftandSure
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Vacancies can't only exist on paper, they are either there or not!
    Of course they can. My unit, despite being a Bn on paper can barely field a Pln in reality. On paper, as a Bn, we could have around 50+ JNCOs; in reality if we did, they'd far outnumber our Ptes. The unit could send someone on the pots and pencil him/her in for IC, 2 Sect, 3 Pln, A Coy, of xBn but in reality the section and Platoon don't exist because there isn't enough soldiers to justify such a large formation of troops.
    Which is the point I'm trying to make, If you already have a 1:1 Ratio of NCO to Pte, then surely you're better off placing a value on producing a better standard of Pte, rather than sending those Ptes off on a Pots course to become substandard NCOs. This gives the existing NCOs an opportunity to exercise their skills and leadership abilities with more troops to lead, rather than saturating their ranks with more of the same.

    TBH, if I had my way, in the regular army, it would take 3 years on average to be considered for promotion (and that was just for L/Cpl in the BA!); but in the reserve, with the low volume and tempo of training we do, it should really be 5 years before a Pte is considered eligible to be promoted. There should be a degree of prestige associated to the rank of Cpl, not entitlement! Making someone work 5 years for it, would bring that about.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X