NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Moderator: dromia
Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Musing. Should the NRA RCO course have additional bolt-on modules for SARTS, MMTT and field firing areas if the MoD's trying to put obstacles in our way by claiming we're not qualified to run those ranges?
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Yep, this would be a solution to the problem if the NRA are willing to offer it and the MOD are willing to accept it.Gaz wrote:Musing. Should the NRA RCO course have additional bolt-on modules for SARTS, MMTT and field firing areas if the MoD's trying to put obstacles in our way by claiming we're not qualified to run those ranges?
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
What is "MATT3 medic qualified" what does it mean / require -anyone? Why is it needed?
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Annualy serving soldiers have to undertake certain training / testing - APWT - Annual Personal Weapons Test for eg, MATT3 is the battlefield first aid course - all soldiers be it clerks or chefs or infantry required to pass it.Chuck wrote:What is "MATT3 medic qualified" what does it mean / require -anyone? Why is it needed?
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
You need to have a RASP (Range Action safety Plan) prepared when using a MoD Range, this should detail what arrangements you have put in place for first aid.
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
So,are civvies / RO's being required to have a similar first aid qualification now?
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Not that I'm aware of but the need to have a plan backed up by a risk assessment that identifies who foes what and when if there is an accident.
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
Hi Dave,ovenpaa wrote:Ceri, have these letters been forwarded to John Webster and the Trustees?
Not yet, but I will be doing so once I have drafted a covering note setting out the chronology of events
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
David,David TS wrote:Ceri
Also, one other question - Landmarc say the issue that we are bumped off STANTA is because the RCO's are not qualified to operate on a range that has the moving targets. What exactly are the 'moving targets', as I have never seen any there?
Landmarc told me directly it is as a result of the moving targetry, but were not able to amplify. I've not seen movers on Great Carr for years, and don't believe I've ever seen them on Robins Lodge. Have asked Landmarc for written notification of the decision , but so far this has not been forthcoming. If this isn't resolved and we don't get written notification as to why I intend to explore a different approach to force an explanation for the decision.
NRA trained RCOs are suitably qualified to run FFAs when these ranges are being used, in effect, as gallery ranges. That is to say courses of fire where shooting is from a static position at non moving targets. This was confirmed by a NRA RCO assessor at the weekend. Hopefully we can bring this to a resolution sooner rather than later.
Ceri
Re: NRA (lack of )support for non Bisley target shooting
So... If there is a MET FEO who is also an NRA RCO, but who has been in the MOD and done the MATT3 during his APWT will he also have to do SARTS and MMTT to run FFA's or will the HQSPTA not allow it?
Mark
Mark
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests