MSO,FPOS I, PDSD and Weapons Competency combined

[Horizon Security Ltd]

MSO City and Guilds

Now students can complete MSO, FPOS I, PDSD and Weapons competency back to back in one location.

Maritime Security Operatives City & Guilds 8269 (£600 + Vat)


The City and Guilds MSO (Maritime Security Operatives) course has been developed to follow the IMO's guidance for PCASP, the ISO PAS 28007 maritime quality standard and achieved accreditation to a National level 3 award. To meet these industry functions the 5-day MSO course (Fast Track option see below) is built around 4 industry related modules:

Understand the Maritime Security Industry

Understand Maritime Pre-deployment Planning & Procedures

Understand Maritime Security Operating Procedures

Understand Maritime Incident Management & Post Operational Procedures.

Upon completion of this course the MSO will be able to demonstrate and apply a practical working knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of an MSO within an MSO team. The course is delivered by Horizon Security Solutions Instructors who are currently active within the anti-piracy security sector and brings realism to all training. Furthermore.

Fast Track MSO Course (£400 +vat)

The City and Guilds Fast Track option is available to operators currently employed within the Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Industry, who can demonstrate prior industry knowledge. The Fast Track course runs concurrently with the full MSO course and is delivered over the first 2 days, finishing with the City & Guilds MSO final multi-choice exam paper.

Criteria to demonstrate prior industry Knowledge:

SSO or PDSD (Proficiency in Designated Security Duties) MCA Qualification.
STCW (Standards of Training Certification and Watch-keeping)
Discharge Book to show over 50 days MSO experiance
or
Company headed letter as verification of frontline MSO duties stating at least 1 years employment or 50 days MSO experiance.


The fast track course is the last 2 days of the full MSO course.

Please visit Horizon Security Solutions - Home for further information

 

[SCT]

You state on your website that your weapons competency courses are held in Scotland. Unless the law has changed then you can only attest to competence on single pull weapons. If someone came to me and said that they were certified competent with the M16/AR15 platform or AK47/74 and then told me it was single pull weapons I would not recognize competency for obvious reasons and I am far from alone in this thinking.

So, I think it is a legitimate question to ask, what is the wording of your certificates?

 

[Horizon Security Ltd]

You state on your website that your weapons competency courses are held in Scotland. Unless the law has changed then you can only attest to competence on single pull weapons. If someone came to me and said that they were certified competent with the M16/AR15 platform or AK47/74 and then told me it was single pull weapons I would not recognize competency for obvious reasons and I am far from alone in this thinking.

So, I think it is a legitimate question to ask, what is the wording of your certificates?

Thanks for your question, yes section 1 firearms 5.56 & 7.62 single pull AK74, AK 47, M4, STYER & Dragunov all the same weapons I have used whilst on maritime operations over the past 4 years.

As you will also see on the website the course is for former military personnel which I'm hoping should already be competent.

The certificate states (if they pass) that the are deemed competent in the live firing of the weapon systems used that day, usually all the weapons stated above.

I don't know how many operators you have seen firing bursts from semi automatic weapons off the side of a vessel, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't deem that as competent as the RUF states single aimed shots and no more rounds than necessary.

I hope that answers your questions, if not we also have a range in Romania where you can fire a burst of automatic, drills are exactly the same apart from more rounds dispense from the weapon, I can't see why this would make someone in the maritime industry that carry single shot weapons more competent.

Unsure on your last deployment but like many operators would agree the poor quantity of ammunitions allowed to be carried I doubt they would be firing bursts of automatic from a moving vessel at a moving target anyway, unless an American call sign

Thanks

Horizon

 

[SCT]

Thanks for your question, yes section 1 firearms 5.56 & 7.62 single pull AK74, AK 47, M4, STYER & Dragunov all the same weapons I have used whilst on maritime operations over the past 4 years.

As you will also see on the website the course is for former military personnel which I'm hoping should already be competent.

The certificate states (if they pass) that the are deemed competent in the live firing of the weapon systems used that day, usually all the weapons stated above.

I don't know how many operators you have seen firing bursts from semi automatic weapons off the side of a vessel, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't deem that as competent as the RUF states single aimed shots and no more rounds than necessary.

I hope that answers your questions, if not we also have a range in Romania where you can fire a burst of automatic, drills are exactly the same apart from more rounds dispense from the weapon, I can't see why this would make someone in the maritime industry that carry single shot weapons more competent.

Unsure on your last deployment but like many operators would agree the poor quantity of ammunitions allowed to be carried I doubt they would be firing bursts of automatic from a moving vessel at a moving target anyway, unless an American call sign

Thanks

Horizon

Firstly, the sarcasm with reference to U.S. callsigns was un-necessary. The great thing about America is that Americans are not so far up their own asses that they believe they know everything about everything and they are willing to integrate other ideas into what they do. If you believe otherwise then you know jack shit about professionals in the United States and have seen too many movies.

If you did your research then you would know that my interest is from the perspective of safe and competent firearms training for the real world and full disclosure and HONESTY from firearms TP's.

I would like you to clarify your answer to my question about the wording of your certificates. If, as you say, they state that students:

are deemed competent in the live firing of the weapon systems used that day

Then they should also state that the weapons used were single pull. Is that the case or not? Students being ex military isn't entirely relevant as a) most ex military that have not worked in the private sector will not have experience of foreign weapons systems, and b) being ex military doesn't necessarily guarantee competence. Ammunition isn't the issue. The issue is putting a full auto weapon in the hands of someone deemed to be competent with single pull weapons. You state quite clearly on your website that "this is real weapons and real ammunition that you will use on a real job overseas" and this is not the case as I am not aware of anyone deploying AK's or M4's converted to single pull .

There isn't really anything you can tell me about Romania. I have been involved with Romania since way before the revolution of 1989, lived there for several years, speak the language, am married to an ex-Securitate officer, my mother-in-law is a politician, I still do business there with government and I know who does and who does not have official authorizations for automatic weapons from the Ministry of Interior.

Please do not detract from the issue at hand by talking about firing from a moving vessel as you are not certifying competent MARINE use of weapons, you are not certifying shooting from a moving platform and it has no bearing.

My experience over decades of HE work and real world firearms training (not throwing rounds up a one way range to tick boxes) entitles me to comment on the value of firearms courses like yours. If you are indeed saying it's just a box ticking exercise, then fair play to you. However if you are saying that it is anything else then I would question that.

 

[counterforceslt]

Could you clarify please that the system you are adhering to with regards of training is being held at a UK licensed shooting range/club ? hence the 2nd monday of each month is classed as an open day of the club to attract new members,therefore i presume the certification is classed as the NRA guide for the SSS ticket (safe shooting system) which is based on the military SST card (safe system of training)for shooting on MOD ranges ? if i am correct so far how are you getting away with issuing this training to only probationary members ? as the MOD to NRA state that after the six months probationary period if and when the committee of the club give full membership to the individual he/she can then do the training for SST card, to also issue the card the club must be NRA affiliated or the member must be an individual member of the NRA this training is then given freely with no charge by the club to its full members to state they are proficient in the weapons type stated on their card,this card can only be signed off by the club chairman and then used at any MOD ranges..If you have a different method within the UK system i would be interested in knowing this for my own benefit ? as for you stating the drills for single pull (straight pull) and semi auto ,plus burst fire are exactly the same ! well not in my book , they have totally different applications, even a bolt action is totally different to a straight pull as we know that you eject the empty case with bolt/breech open even before removing the mag (mag removal normally done first if not applying safety to make safe) with a straight pull or paddle release this feeds the next round into the breech if the mag is still in place with rounds in ,without teaching anybody on this site to suck eggs as i presume the majority on here are firearms profficiant ? this gives a totally differant aspect to fire and movement and any form of tactical drills without the correct training skills applied ,for example a normal right handed shooter would keep his right hand on the pistol grip/finger off the trigger and cock/load the with left hand over the top of breech ,even the m4 varants have got a lug on the bolt carrier for straight pull loading ,i am not trying to be a smart arse in this subject, i genuinely want to know what system of training with paperwork and approval you have in place.If any ?

 

[counterforceslt]

SCT
Good response .

 

[trublue]

Pardon for the interruption guys, but even if its a single pull system will it still be .22 being fired??

 

[PADDYOS]

In Horizons defence there is a post on utube where the American team leader states to his team that they are to fire aimed shots, then the team proceed to empty a magazine each on automatic over the side wing of the bridge into a skiff.....good fire control!!!

 

[SCT]

In Horizons defence there is a post on utube where the American team leader states to his team that they are to fire aimed shots, then the team proceed to empty a magazine each on automatic over the side wing of the bridge into a skiff.....good fire control!!!

There are also plenty of videos on Youtube of Brits being complete bellends so shall we also extrapolate that to mean that the entire British Army is a bunch of untrained dickheads?

 

[counterforceslt]

Pardon for the interruption guys, but even if its a single pull system will it still be .22 being fired??

No, in the UK you can still own and shoot 22 rimfire which includes the larger WMR magnum round in self loading (semi auto)weapons, not many to choose from in WMR as most are bolt action or lever,the best in my opinion are the early H&K semis as for straight pull weapons these are in normal centre fire caliber's ,7.62/308 ,223/5.56 and so on ,9mm are normally paddle release.

 

[Mark22150]

ISO/PAS 28007 will be the accepted standard shortly part of this document under section 4.4.4 Firearms Training

(a) Ensure that all personnel who are employed to carry and use firearms are trained and competent on the specific firearms they are intended to use and are assessed to be competent in their use prior to embarkation on ship and are updated on the applicable Rules of Use of force prior to deployment:

Section (b) states that they only use the specific firearms for which they are qualified and trained to use.

Section (c) is about refresher training once a year, Live firing using the specific firearms, documented evaluations etc.

The key word in the document is SPECIFIC firearms, some people may try and argue that a manually operated firearm, e.g. a straight pull, M4/L1A1/G3 or AK is in a similar form as the specific firearm for example the mag release, safety and sights are the same therefore it complies with 4.4.4 of the document.

I ask only, what is your understanding of SPECIFIC? A semi automatic rifle is SELF LOADING not manually operated. Therefore it can not be SPECIFIC and therefore does not comply.

As for ammunition, if the SPECIFIC firearm used on board is 5.56mm or 7.62mm etc. Training and evaluation, live firing must be conducted with the SPECIFIC firearm and SPECIFIC ammunition. One will not function without the other!!

Using full auto in a contact on board ship not the best idea! RUF, ammo resupply, could be seem as a little OTT post incident when being questioned during a board of enquiry by the legal eagle who is working for the poor now dead Somalia pirates(fisherman) families!

 

[trublue]

So Mark, does this mean under ISO 28007 all of these training providers using .22 on their courses will not have their certificates/Training recognised therefore rendering them of no use??

 

[Customloads]

So Mark, does this mean under ISO 28007 all of these training providers using .22 on their courses will not have their certificates/Training recognised therefore rendering them of no use??

All training certificates have negotiable value, very few training or accrediting bodies are universally accepted. Equivalency is as I say - negotiated.

Clearly firing .22 semi auto is not as close to the "specific" weapons as the actual weapons. But for some, good enough. For others, no value at all.

 

[trublue]

So under sect 4.4.4 Fire Arms Training Sect B if you are trained (by certain TP's using .22) then that is the weapon you should be using on the vessel?

 

[SCT]

So Mark, does this mean under ISO 28007 all of these training providers using .22 on their courses will not have their certificates/Training recognised therefore rendering them of no use??

So under sect 4.4.4 Fire Arms Training Sect B if you are trained (by certain TP's using .22) then that is the weapon you should be using on the vessel?

The dictionary meaning of "specific"

specific
adjective (PARTICULAR)
relating to one thing and not others; particular:

Mark is absolutely right, the key is this word.

Training on firearm "a" that is unrelated in function or "feel" to firearm "b" is not competency in the use of firearm "a" by any stretch of the imagination when the only thing they have in common is how they look. It can be dressed up and spun any way people want but it's like taking a motorcycle test to drive a car.

My personal opinion is that training providers who do this are at best being duplicitous and at worst defrauding their students. Unless and until people are deployed with single pull and .22LR weapons this remains the case.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for real world training with real firearms. It's a shame in can't be done in mainland UK, but substituting something else isn't the answer.

 

[trublue]

The dictionary meaning of "specific"

specific
adjective (PARTICULAR)
relating to one thing and not others; particular:

Mark is absolutely right, the key is this word.

Training on firearm "a" that is unrelated in function or "feel" to firearm "b" is not competency in the use of firearm "a" by any stretch of the imagination when the only thing they have in common is how they look. It can be dressed up and spun any way people want but it's like taking a motorcycle test to drive a car.

My personal opinion is that training providers who do this are at best being duplicitous and at worst defrauding their students. Unless and until people are deployed with single pull and .22LR weapons this remains the case.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for real world training with real firearms. It's a shame in can't be done in mainland UK, but substituting something else helps no-one

Amen to that

 

[Mark22150]

So Mark, does this mean under ISO 28007 all of these training providers using .22 on their courses will not have their certificates/Training recognised therefore rendering them of no use??

That is down to employers/clients to decide whether training conducted pre embarkation on firearms which are not SPECIFIC is acceptable.

If and when a fatal incident happens either by an ND or incident ending in fatalities or injury.

Questions are going to asked and training/standards scrutinised.

The individual whether a former soldier or not with numerous years service/experience.

Answers the question "you were using a G3, 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle when the incident happen"? Answer "YES"! "But you were trained on a .22 or straight pull M4"? answer "Yes" the QC is going to say "Therefore you were not competent"! verdict will be, "Guilty and Liable"!

The biggest risk to the ship/crew/cargo is not the pirates! It is individual with a firearm on board that has not received proper training.

This is what the IMO 1443 states.

Training of the PCASP team
4.3 PMSC should ensure that the PCASP it employs receive and can demonstrate having received adequate and appropriate individual and collective training. Records of such training should be maintained and demonstrate that PCASP have the necessary operational capabilities as per section 5 of this document. PMSC should therefore be able to provide documentary evidence of the following:
.1 comprehensive, detailed and auditable records of training, both initial and refresher;
.2 that the team leader has verifiable familiarity of the ship type and the particular route envisaged and in maritime security and protection;
.3 that personnel are trained and qualified to documented company standards in the appropriate use of force which include the command and control relationship between the PCASP and the master of the ship;
.4 that personnel are trained and competent with the specific firearms, ammunition and other related security equipment deployed on the ship;
.5 that PCASP personnel are given medical training to a recognized national or international standard;
.6 that personnel are given appropriate training and/or briefing specific to the ship type, where that ship will be operating and what legal/practical implications that might have for their deployment, and in the provisions of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, International Safety Management (ISM) Code and BMP.

 

[Mark22150]

The word SPECIFIC is very,very important..... The UK Government does not extend authorisation for training using prohibited firearms. Says it all really. If training is to take place using the SPECIFIC firearms then it must by take place outside England, Wales and Scotland.

Department of Transport

Interim Guidance to UK Flagged Shipping on the Use of Armed Guards to Defend Against the Threat of Piracy in Exceptional Circumstances Version 1.2


Training of personnel (**section still under review**)
3.13 The shipping company should expect the armed security personnel to have the following training as a minimum:
• STCW 78 as amended, Reg. VI/1 Section A-VI/1.2.1 - Personal Survival Techniques;
• STCW 78 as amended, Reg. VI/1 Section A-VI/1.2.4 - Personal Safety and Social Responsibilities;
• STCW 78 as amended, Reg. VI/6 Section A-VI/6 para 6 to 8 - Designated Security Duties;
• Training in, and a complete understanding of, the agreed rules for the use of force;
• Relevant medical training;
• Training and satisfactory recent experience of operating the specific firearms and other security-related equipment that will be used on the voyage;
• Training in BMP and protecting ships from acts of piracy.
3.14 Once the security team is embarked, the ship’s Master should arrange for the team to undergo onboard familiarisation training. This should include briefing on the ship’s cargo and trading route, and the ship protection measures that have already been implemented.
3.15 At the current time Home Office policy does not extend to authorisation of PMSCs to undertake maritime security training in firearms, including training in the use of prohibited weapons. However, this is an area where the Government is working with the Private Maritime Security industry. The Security in Complex Environments Group (SCEG) have been appointed as the Government's industry partner in this area and any announcements on this topic will be publicised via the SCEG website (www.sceguk.org.uk).

 

[PADDYOS]

The thing is if a training provider is going to have to teach MSO's from different companies then they will have to have an armoury of about 10 different weapons. I work for two companies and have access to 5 various weapons.

 

[Mark22150]

The thing is if a training provider is going to have to teach MSO's from different companies then they will have to have an armoury of about 10 different weapons. I work for two companies and have access to 5 various weapons.

Some TPs do have, If training is to be to the required standards as per ISO/PAS 28007, IMO 1443 and PSC.1, TPs should get them or not conduct the training.

The difficulty is that the law in England, Scotland and Wales prohibits training with the specific firearms in the specific calibre.

Just to clarify my opinion of the word specific is the correct firearm, in the correct calibre using the correct system i.e. self loading(semi automatic), others my have a different understanding of the word specific.

What has been acceptable previously is unlikely to be in the future. Either primary legislation in the UK needs to be amended(most unlikely within the next 3 years) to allow training with section 5 firearms or the training will have to be conducted outside the UK.

Another alternative would be to only use section 1 firearms by the PMSCs, then training could lawfully be conducted in the UK on the specific firearms in the specific calibre using the specific system.(manually operated).