ACP20 Pers Form 1-19


Even if it is argued there are an average of only 1 per Sqn binned, that’s still 1000 overnight off the books.

Single biggest overnight cull in ATC history.

Also, now not helped by the Mods new BPSS security form.
Mother of all admin increases continue.


The new BPSS form makes me wonder what the definition of volunteer is and how we can still be referred to as volunteers with a form that looks like an OTT job application and a contract (oops volunteer agreement), after all the strenuous efforts to extricate Officers from the RAF and tell us we’re not employees.


I seems as if someone in MOD has just made a decision based on what applies to the rest of the MOD without understanding. It may be the only mechanism they have to check people who operate in the environments in which we operate as part of the CF so we may be stuck with it.

The introduction to the document that describes the BPSS says to me that it does not apply to the volunteers in this organisation:

The HMG Baseline Personnel Security Standard (or ‘BPSS’) describes the preemployment controls for all civil servants, members of the Armed Forces, temporary staff and government contractors generally. Its rigorous and consistent application also underpins national security vetting.


Well that wouldn’t be a surprise and the spineless bunch in HQAC being a subservient group just roll over and wouldn’t think to question its validity, for people who are not employees or contractors, as they have been to great lengths to stress.


So if you are a volunteer, then you turn up when you are available, not putting off doing other things which maybe far less than what the present hours stipulate reuire. What can they do about it?


Depends who ‘they’ are?

If RAFAC are seen as not complying with MOD policy, they (MOD, the RAF) could stop access to military establishments; bang goes shooting, camps, flying, etc.


HQAC. if voluteers don’t attend then there is no ATC. Reading what is here that document is aimed at ‘employees and or contractors’.


Odd! We do not normally suffer because of blanket regulations designed for the armed forces and associated businesses being applied to us merely because of our association with them.

No, wait…


This then comes to the old chestnut of we are one thing when it suits and something else when it doesn’t.

The bit that I don’t get it is, I imagine this has been an MOD rule for a while and it seems oddly coincidental that after going through the new commission then contract signing and clear out, this pops up. I’m not suggesting our lot in Cranwell are intelligent enough to think like that, but you never know.


The irony is during my real job I have access to business sensitive information all the time that would be regarded as secret, given if it got to a competitor it wouldn’t be good. No security checks or asking questions about my private life, to see if I’m OK.
Yet here we are playing dress up and pretend armed forces and for CIs not even dressing up, needing, going through a job application process asking all manner of personal questions, for the once in a blue moon access to or seeing something vaguely secret.

Given one of the rationales is we might just get access to something secret, will the cadets and parents of cadets have to do this, given cadets are more likely to talk about things to parents and we don’t know their parents from Adam. As a cadet I went to some supposedly secret places, as did the staff and saw things we were told not to speak about.


Another issue that they haven’t thought much about is the Health & Safety. Volunteers are at the lowest levels of responsibility within the Act, surpassed by employees. So does that mean that all the units need to have a member of the MoD (one of paid staff at the local Wing HQ) as the responsible person? As Officers are no longer part of the RAF and not employees, should they be the responsible person?
This question was asked of the HQ H&S and they couldn’t answer!


Sounds like another load of FTRS jobs, for those leaving the RAF not ready for the real world and needing an unaccountable, gold plated, copper bottomed place to hide.


Careful now you’ll upset the FTRS bod thats on here


In a word no. I believe the corps is sailing very close to wind by delegating H & S responsibility to an unpaid volunteer. The seem to forget that much of what we do as CFAV is unpaid.
RC (W&W) has been tasked to look at remuneration. Also a previous RC (N) who then changed jobs and had a big impact on gliding put out a paper on reforming pay when he was stilll a RC. Has opening gambit was that you are all volunteers why SHOULD they get paid. I paraphrase but that is the gist of it.
One of the options was pay baised on yor role. Sqn cdr would get x amount a year, sqn execs less sqn staff less again. Exercise commander would get more than exercise staff. but this would be less than current pay but be offset by role pay.
RC(W&W) hopefully start from scratch.


From the HSE:

Health and safety legislation doesn’t generally apply to someone who is not an employer, self-employed or an employee.

So how can CFAVs be responsible under the HSaW Act 1974?

Health & Safety and Responsible Persons

Another unforeseen consequence of this change!
What others are hiding in plain sight!


bang goes shooting, camps, flying, etc

I’m not sure that’s the threat it once was.


Does this mean those on FTRS and civil service contracts are the designated people responsible for health and safety, as it looks as if that responsibility cannot be designated to a volunteer.

So therefore by changing the rules the CFAVS can say in effect ‘not my problem guv’ and those who are paid will to take responsibility at all times, even when they are nowhere near any activity. Could be a very busy time for them and a lot of paperwork going to be needed to be signed off.

Again unforseen circumstances.


I have started a new topic as I didn’t want to receive a picture of chocolate bar!! Health & Safety and Responsible Persons


Hmmm … note to self … try not to get bothered. Good, done that, move on.