That’s actually a very good point.
Now that the AEFs have been opened up for flying schemes, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to reintroduce the ACPNTS and ACAEFC previously run by AEFs, rather than the singular ACPS?
This would have seen a doubling of the flying schemes available, (even if the number of cadets attending was the same as ACPS), and @Cab would have looked doubly good!
I’m sure you have a thick skin or you wouldn’t have made it to 2* let alone come in here!
I would gently challenge, though, the inbuilt assumption in that reply that the RAF/military approach to safety management is the only valid model, or the most appropriate model for managing risk in activities for young people. Other people and organisations (ACF, scouts, LEAs, independent schools, BGA junior schemes) have significant relevant experience and an excellent safety record. A lot of the friction between the 22 Gp chain of command and the CFAVs stems from this.
Our approach to air safety is world leading and functional safety is a very close second. We have the scar tissue to show where we have got things wrong. Our recent safety record is all the evidence that is required. We have a robust process which is evidence-based and I absolutely relish the open and honest discussions I have I the safety environment and have done for many, many years. In particular, the Duty Holder system of accountability and responsibility is brilliant. Clear and precise. And much of that sits with me as an individual. My signature which says yes or no to what children do within RAFAC. Not your signature…mine. And I take nothing else more seriously.
Absolutely nobody is arguing that the safety management isn’t the best in the business and I’ve learned a huge amount through my CFAV role which has made me better at my day job.
Where disagreement tends to occur is over the balance between opportunity and risk. At the most extreme we can make activities entirely safe by stopping them. At the other, we can remove regulation entirely and risk injury and death. Somewhere in the middle is a balance we can strike but many CFAVs would take the view that in the phrase ‘ALARP and tolerable’ we are losing sight of the meaning of ‘reasonably practicable’ and that risk tolerance has all but disappeared, becoming total risk aversion. You might be keen on risk aversion given that it’s your name on the paperwork but appropriate risk tolerance is what creates memorable and challenging experiences for cadets - not risk aversion. And I’ve been a DDH, if not an ODH.
If you will excuse me, but air safety could only improve following:
ZD 576
XV 230
Ejector seat misfiring at Scampton, death of Flt Lt Sean Cunningham.
Hawk crash at Valley, death of Corporal Jonathon Bayliss.
ZZ 333 multiple injures to passengers and crew, pilot given a suspended prison sentence and dismissed from the service.
if i may add two additional examples which are closer to home
Two cousins and their AEF pilots died following a collision
Air Cadet and AEF pilot die after hitting a glider
I recognise that measures have been taken since these, and no incidents have occurred since, let alone similar ones
Maybe let’s not bring up the deaths of people in aviation accidents to make a point. We can do that without causing those families more trauma.
Also, these are things that @Cab hasn’t shied away from referencing:
In the context being discussed, I’d be more interested in the comparison to BGA and ATO/DTO sites’ flights undertaken by qualified and approved instructors than our current performance to historical.
Does any of this add to the conversation we are having at the moment? No.
What we need to do is work out how risk management should be an enabler and not a blocker to activates. CFAVs have always worked with the risk of bringing young people into challenging and demanding situations that grow our cadets into robust and capable young people. Much of this is new to the CoC of RAFAC where DDH is a new thing. There is a lot to learn on both sides regarding risk and communicating how this risk is managed.
I will use the analogy of abseiling to demonstrate the difference of risk and fear of risk. Abseiling is a very safe activity with and abseil rope and a safety rope, multiple anchor points and a properly trained and authorised staff and kit which checked and in date. This doesn’t stop this activity being challenging for the cadets. Now look at the risk management of this activity. An experience climber will see a fun and safe activity. A lay person with no experience of climbing or ropework will see a very big cliff and the splat at the bottom.
Risk mgt is all monitoring from above and trust in safe delivery. We do not build better cadets and as a result better service personnel by the exclusion of risk or perceived risk.
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
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…
Have you seen this thread? Its a better place for info on ACPS.
Here here.
No need for it indeed
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.
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.