RAF Lyneham

[sir vicalsmeer]

I'd be careful - I've been told that one of the Armoury staff are on the ACLO team......!

That is correct.

[sir vicalsmeer]

Not gonna bite, I just don't appreciate me and my staff sitting with two minibuses of cadets waiting at a range while the Armoury staff first of all say that we're welcome to book out weapons, then decide we can't have them, then when we enquire why not, we are told - in a similar response to that above - by one armourer that their job isn't to look after cadets, they are there to support operations.

At a base level he was right, read RAF Lynehams Mission Statement, it says nothing about supporting cadets, as I wasn't present at the conversation, who knows what was said. You were welcome to book weapons. The correct procedures had not been followed, ergo your denial of weapons. Funnily enough the paperwork and procedure for signing out weapons must be followed 100%, I would have thought that to be obvious. It is not just red tape put in your way, the procedure is also there to protect you.

When we go back to the CC he makes a few calls to the ACLO team and it turns out that we were allowed the weapons, just the armourer in question had decided not to sign them out, for whatever reason.

As above, the correct authorisations had not been obtained, not "whatever reason". Perhaps you would be happier if any tom, dick, or harry was given a weapon without thorough checks being carried out.

When we go back to collect, we are left waiting for half an hour before the ACLO shows up, after which they are delivered promptly.We were entirley curteous, polite and understanding throughout our dealings with them, and to be fair on them I believe the CC got an apology from their boss.

Yes, waiting half an hour for the ACLO to bring the correctly authorised paperwork, his failing, not the armouries. I think you will also find that our boss did not apologise and that the ACLO apologised to us for not carrying out the correct weapon authorisation procedure.

Nice bite by the way

[Mike Whiskey]

To be honest, the above seems to highlight a common problem faced on camp, and that is the communication on station.

we turn up with 30+ cadets to entertain for the week, and are handed a programme. Invariably, in my experience, the sections are not expecting you for the section visits, the weapons and ranges are not expecting you, or think you are coming on a different date, MT have a travel plot that does not fit the programme we have.

The ACLO and team swear blind that they have done their job, yet the sections swear blind that they have not been contacted.

It leaves us in the awkward position of getting a different story everywhere we turn, whilst trying not to let the chaos impact on the cadet experience.

I know that may not seem a lot compared to your operational needs, but it is our priority, so excuse us if we get a little stressed!
I would also pointout that regardless of 'Mission Statement', the camp, and the ACO does not simply impse itself on the unit, the Station Commander has approved the camp, and so it must have some priority there.

I have been at camps where the issue has escalated to the Station Commander, who has been none too pleased with the lack of support areas of his unit have given us.

In this case it appears that the real problem was never communicated to camp staff, possibly by an ACLO trying to save face....

In most cases, everyone does what they can to assist, and to try and get everything to rub along together. There will sometimes be grumpy, stressed or busy individuals on all sides.

MW

[Quennen]

No, our CC got an apology from somebody (I heard it was the Armoury Boss, could have been ACLO) because of how rude and inappropriate the behaivour of the armourer in question was.

It seems that you are more aware of the situation than I am, which surprises me as I was looking after the programme for the week. If it was a fault of the paperwork on the ACLOs part, there was no need for the Armourer to be so rude and obnoxious towards camp staff, especially in front of cadets. That, whatever the mission statement or operational requirements is unnacceptable.

And just one question, if

the correct authorisations had not been obtained, not "whatever reason".

Why were we told the day before, by the armoury, that they had been obtained and we were welcome to come and collect the weapons?

I think everyone needs to take a bit of blame here, the Armoury for their rudeness and changing their authorisations, The ACLO team for screwing up and not letting anyone know, and us Camp Staff for not insisting on the right information in the first place.

[fooligan]

At a base level he was right, read RAF Lynehams Mission Statement, it says nothing about supporting cadets

RAF GAI 1026 (Royal Air Force Support to the Air Cadet Organization) would seem to apply to all RAF stns, however.

The correct procedures had not been followed, ergo your denial of weapons. Funnily enough the paperwork and procedure for signing out weapons must be followed 100%, I would have thought that to be obvious. It is not just red tape put in your way, the procedure is also there to protect you.

That seems fair enough to me - if the paperwork isn't right, you can't expect wpns to be issued until it is correct. Oddly enough though, the only paperwork I've ever had to show the armoury before signing for wpns are F1250, F7257 and a RASP if running a range. The only other thing I've ever had to do is call ahead beforehand, but I prefer to visit the armoury beforehand to show my face and detail exactly what requirements we'll need for wpns, ancilliaries etc. What other paperwork is there? All signing out is usually done on the paperwork held by the armoury, so I don't understand what procedures / paperwork weren't followed?

Yes, waiting half an hour for the ACLO to bring the correctly authorised paperwork, his failing, not the armouries.

So if it was the ACLO's fault, why did the armoury staff (in Quennen's view at least) take it out on the camp staff?

[Quennen]

That seems fair enough to me - if the paperwork isn't right, you can't expect wpns to be issued until it is correct. Oddly enough though, the only paperwork I've ever had to show the armoury before signing for wpns are F1250, F7257 and a RASP if running a range. The only other thing I've ever had to do is call ahead beforehand, but I prefer to visit the armoury beforehand to show my face and detail exactly what requirements we'll need for wpns, ancilliaries etc. What other paperwork is there? All signing out is usually done on the paperwork held by the armoury, so I don't understand what procedures / paperwork weren't followed?

Don't look at me, I know nothing about shooting

[OC504]

I was on Lynham as a CI back in 2000, we had a nite ex and a day ex which included a yomp through Wiltshire with an "Air Drop" at Hullavington - our in our case a "drop" out of the back of a LR110. My limited experiance was good, we all (including Cdts) were accommodated in Transit Blocks.

We even had the Station Commander attend one morning, to ask of the Cdts had been airborne in a Fat Albert - to which the negative was offered - 5 mins later the "Duty Crew" and "Duty Aircraft" were loading Cadets into the back for 60mins flights, in two waves - all camp flew for 60mins.

[Grumpy Old Man 1574]

MW's comments are a very common story on virtually all camps.

All too often, the ACLO has simply used his predecessor's paperwork, without checking if the contact names are still correct, if the contact numbers are still correct and in some cases, if the section to be visitied is still in the same building or even still on station! In other cses, the sections simply don't read or action the Station's Camp Op Order, or don't flag up potential problem back to the ACLO.

Last Easter's Lyneham Camp, I'm sad to say, was one of these. However, this was mitigated by the sterling work of the two (brand-new at the time) DACLOs, who, being both FSs, had enough weight on station to get things sorted at short notice. This included keys for the cadet accommodation, keys for the camp office and accommodation for the camp staff.

The Camp Op Order had been circulated to all sections on the distribution list, but had clearly only been read and actioned by the MT Section, JRM, Armoury and 3 AEF at Colerne. Consequently, the first few days were spent frantically ringing every section on the programme and we had to completely re-write the programme from scratch, including filling two entire days. Thankfully, I think lessons were learned by the ACLO Team and we all parted on extremely good terms - and it sounds like the summer camps had far less hassle (apart from the above-mentioned armoury issue)!

[incubus]

MW's comments are a very common story on virtually all camps.

I'll echo that, even if you are 6 weeks into 9 or so of summer camps the number of sections who claim to know nothing about your visit can be astounding.

The worst I saw however was an Easter camp at Wittering in 2008 where I swear the only people who knew we were coming was the ACLO team. Shocking camp.

[sirvicalsmeer]

That seems fair enough to me - if the paperwork isn't right, you can't expect wpns to be issued until it is correct. Oddly enough though, the only paperwork I've ever had to show the armoury before signing for wpns are F1250, F7257 and a RASP if running a range. The only other thing I've ever had to do is call ahead beforehand, but I prefer to visit the armoury beforehand to show my face and detail exactly what requirements we'll need for wpns, ancilliaries etc. What other paperwork is there? All signing out is usually done on the paperwork held by the armoury, so I don't understand what procedures / paperwork weren't followed?

Sorry for taking so long to get back, I've had account problems, note the subtley different username.

Anyway, many service armouries run different systems. At Lyneham, due to the nature of tasks we carry out, very specific paperwork has to be completed. You cannot rock up with a 1250, 7257 and a rasp and draw weapons. Obviously you need all those but you also require a correctly authorised "Request for Arms and Ammunition". This form has to be countersigned by the correct authorising officer, which in the case of many cadet camps, wasn't. This is the fault of the ACLO, he should have prepped the paperwork for the camp. Hope this clears things up.

[sirvicalsmeer]

No, our CC got an apology from somebody (I heard it was the Armoury Boss, could have been ACLO) because of how rude and inappropriate the behaivour of the armourer in question was.

It seems that you are more aware of the situation than I am, which surprises me as I was looking after the programme for the week. If it was a fault of the paperwork on the ACLOs part, there was no need for the Armourer to be so rude and obnoxious towards camp staff, especially in front of cadets. That, whatever the mission statement or operational requirements is unnacceptable.

And just one question, if

the correct authorisations had not been obtained, not "whatever reason".

Why were we told the day before, by the armoury, that they had been obtained and we were welcome to come and collect the weapons?

I think everyone needs to take a bit of blame here, the Armoury for their rudeness and changing their authorisations, The ACLO team for screwing up and not letting anyone know, and us Camp Staff for not insisting on the right information in the first place.

The armoury staff did not "change the authorisations". They have been in place for the last 7 years at least. The autorisations had not been obtained.

There certainly was no apology from the boss of the armoury as that is me. If the armourer was so rude, as you alledge, why did you not make a complaint at the time? Or ask to see the boss at the time? Or get the ACLO to get in touch to raise your complaint? As I had no complaints last year at all I can only assume you are bigging the issue up now. I refuse to beleive that if it was as bad as you say you did nothing at the time.

Hopefully if you return you will have a better experience.

[Mike Whiskey]

The issue is (as always) one of communication.

It appears that the camp staff were told by one armourer that all was well, only to find that it was not at all well the following day. (not uncommon across RAF Stations, in my experience.

Most Camp staff are reluctant to raise complaints, because we are well aware that we are a low priority for the camp, and complaining will probably cost us what little goodwill we have, and no-one want to make things worse either for the rest of their week, or for those camps that follow on.

I'm slightly wary of continuing to discuss this matter in public, however I also think both sides having an appreciation of the others point of view is equally useful.

lets tread carefully.

MW

[sirvicalsmeer]

Well said. But the complaints procedure is there for a reason. Use it. And it helps if you get a name.

[incubus]

I'm fairly sure it would have been raised in the end-of-camp report that the ATC camp commandant completes. I believe that makes its way to the station as well as through our own chain and I hope that they are read and taken on board. That process may place any issues in a better context than going through some other complaints process.

[Peakplodder]

We were on camp at lyneham in 2008 and had no problems at all.I was the RCO for the week and trundled of to the armoury to introduce myself and check everything was hunky dory,I found the staff polite (especially when I returned a L98 that had been cleaned by a cadet with the pull through and several bits of wadding stuck up the barrel ) and switched on to the needs of the cadets.
The camp itself was great and all the sections visited made an effort for the cadets. Highlight was the trip in a herc for the whole camp to lossimouth then to Aldergrove and back to base which meant that we were unable to do The booked range practice,I informed the armoury and there response was "No Problem"