The point was that the AOC made was that the RAF have a safety culture, I was just pointing out that this hasn’t until recent years has always been the case so any improvement is welcome.
But your examples were historic and lessons have been learnt, so please take the advice given above move on
1 Like
About 10 years ago, I worked for a company that held an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC), mainly doing rotary utility work.
We had a new safety manager start with us who had every course and certificate under the sun. He was keen to point out the 100% safety record he had grown in all of his previous jobs.
6 months into the job and people started to notice that he was just saying no to everything that was being placed in front of him. He basically turned up for work, said no no no no, took his wage and then went home.
Around the 1 year point, alarm bells were starting to ring. The amount of work the company had carried out after the safety managers input/rubber stamping had fallen dramatically. We were no longer even doing the jobs we had been doing safely for the last 15 years. The company was dying on its a7se!
A conversation about the balance between opportunity and risk followed, during which the safety manager continually alluded to the fact that the safest way to do something risky, was not to do it in the first place. He was sacked a month later.
The RAFAC is giving me Deja vu at the moment!
I was a FSO in the RAF, FSO in my first commercial airline & fleet safety rep in my previous airline, both airlines ran world-wide operations.
There doesn’t seem to be enough cotton wool for RAFAC to be comfortable with ALARP risk…
5 Likes
Have you seen this thread? Its a better place for info on ACPS.
2 Likes
Here here.
No need for it indeed
1 Like
Beyond disappointing to read in Weekly Brief No63 that the annual allocation of places on ACPS will drop from 200, when it was outsourced to Tayside Aviation, to a meager 40 places now it has been brought ‘in house’.
Only 0.07% of cadets will get a place on this scholarship!
Damn, I thought the minimum starting number was 50, and we were going to work upwards from there, per the long FOI. Sad to hear it’s only 40.
Sadly, I’m not surprised. It’s why RAFAC (@Cab) should be looking at ways to augment this meagre allocation. Clearly, there’s not enough resources to divert Tutors hrs even more from the existing use (UAS / AEF, etc), so let’s look at scholarships / bursaries - use the due diligence / duty of care protocols alrwady in use by the Hon Company of Air Pilots / Air League - & work from there. If OC2FTS can be linked within Air Pilots to allocate civvie scholarships / bursaries, then that already shows acceptance of the protocols.
Looking at 40 ACPS awards versus 150(?) that used to be flown annually at Tayside, there has to be some money left in the pot.
Same argument (due diligence / duty of care protocols) for allowing flights in non-Service aircraft - let’s look at all options to get cadets flying & instill that “wow” factor that’s very much missing at the moment.
5 Likes
And here I was thinking I was so horribly wrong to ask “where are the extra flying hours going to come from”… I know I perhaps was overly harsh when I said this:
But I feel like I might’ve made this point a good couple of months ago!
But rather that just slate the good sir, it’s clear we need to think about how to get more hours available for cadets, be it Military Flying or not.
4 Likes
So we’ve now had an update regarding selection processes for GS and ACPS,
I feel like the ACPS application wording doesn’t now quite align with the whole “The Air Cadets is not a recruiting organisation, and cadets will not be expected to join the military or face any pressure to do so.”
Your ambition to join the RAF is now one of the 3 4** main things you are assessed on during your application. Specifically favouring those with pilot/aircrew ambitions within the RAF.
I get it, we are the RAF Air Cadets. But we should be offering every activity we do irrespective and without prejudice of a cadets’ ambition on join the RAF when they leave.
This doesn’t sit right with me. Eh, maybe I’m wrong here, but just wanted to highlight this as it feels like a bit of a ‘shift’ in our fundamentals.
** The list goes 1, 2, 2, 3.
5 Likes
I think the reason for the favourability to RAF applicants could have to do with them learning the RAF’s Top secret numbering system to hide things from the russians
simply hide top secret info as a number thats already been used Genius
2 Likes
TBF it’s the same system used to number squadrons and confuse the enemy…
2 Likes
Too true.
Anyway, regardless of planned career choice, all a cadet will do is state that they have always wanted to join the RAF as a pilot / WSO…
Wouldn’t they join RAFAC rather than RAF to be a Wing Staff Officer?
2 Likes
Apologies, i never clicked the link until today, so it may have changed in the last 24+ hours since posted but…
that link now directs to IBN 031-2024 and within that:
- the number system you mention i cannot find, only bullet points.
- There does not look to be any ambition to join the RAF within the IBN
(although note in the FAQs on page 3, the last question does suggest that candidates interested in being an RAF pilot will be given priority (“more likely to be offered”)
have i missed something?
All the IBN says regarding the RAF is
- RAFAC aims to support the RAF’s ambition to ‘engage, inspire and attract’ suitable quality candidates for its profession
I read this as the RAFAC is following the RAF’s selection ethos by selecting the “quality candidates” for its most attractive opportunity (for the RAF being a Pilot, for the RAFAC, getting a flying scholarship)
- will be configured to signpost our brightest and best air cadets towards the RAF
Those candidates who do well will be pointed towards an AFCO with a recommendation to join the RAF as a pilot.
Has this been edited since @JoeBloggs first highlighted these concerns that the RAFAC was almost a recruitment process?
another point i notice:
- there is a need to ensure standardisation of the selection process for the GS and aviation opportunities…
- The selection process will be consistent within each Region
All good so far…
- a more pragmatic and discretionary approach might be required to ensure that training opportunities are not missed
while there are hopes to create a standard and consistent approach nationally to how candidates are selected, this last bullet point does act as a (massive imo) disclaimer that those who conduct the selection process still have the ability to use their own discretion
It’s possibly pointing to the fact that some Astra Ground Schools (AGS - the previously stated option for Bronze & various computer based trg) are not available = there has to be declared methodology for selection in those Regions / Wgs, otherwise it wouldn’t be fair to allocate GS / ACPS to those areas not covered by AGS.
Going back a very long time, the ACPS was only awarded to cadets who had attended OASC to complete the aptitude tests (although I have no idea if the required grading was the same as if applying for pilot). However, ACPS was a huge prize of 30 hrs flying, so perhaps understandable that a more vigorous testing procedure was used.
So are the current proposals suitable for the current style of ACPS / amount of flying? If only 40-50 are going to be allocated / flown at AEFs, then maybe it is necessary to filter - but as stated in the IBN, it will be very important to ensure that is is a standard assessment package RAFAC-wide.
The other point about this - what other options could there be if a cadet isn’t selected for ACPS? How about a bursary for some of them so at least they could get some flying - using an external provider of course! 
no, as indicated, i recognised the FAQs on page three…
I had missed the blue box you quote on page 2 - thanks
clearly i had missed this - odd to put it in the box and not in the body of the notice
1 Like