You would have thought so wouldn’t you?
Try telling that to the LaSE Region Parade at St Clement Danes . . . it’s still in Draft. It had something like 500 cadets and ~70 staff in attendance. (figures out of thin air)
Personally I think it looks bad if cadets are constantly seeing events that are in Draft (although I don’t remember if cadets see the event status or not). We should be getting all the arrangements and staffing nailed down for a target of X cadets, and only then opening it up to cadets to look at on CP.
based on this - the last three years at RIAT should not have taken place
RIAT - post event!!
I am sure it is the same for other national events/camps but i have experience of RIAT.
some years ago when our Wing was very active in shooting one WI/RCO was very strict and would pull out of support a week prior to the event if it hadn’t been “approved” on SMS made for a different plan on the day when the RCO doesn’t turn up!
One reason is the transport declaration. For Wg and higher level events with each invited Sqn having to sign the declaration, it causes a lot of hassle. Unless a unit actively tells me they’re not sending Cadets, I can’t remove the Sqn from the activity.
I understand the logic of the declaration but it’s a pain for smaller specialist courses where in all likelihood Cadets or parents will make own travel arrangements.
The only practical way around it I’ve found is to close the nominal roll, delete Sqns without cadets, chase those with cadets to sign the transport declaration and submit for approval. As we don’t want to bar cadets from attending this needs to happen as late as possible.
ACTO 10 specifically states that the cadet list can be amended up until the event is completed, so one would assume that the cadet list should not be a requirement for approval. Though, that doesn’t stop some people from refusing to authorise events which don’t yet have cadet bids.
In the old days we were told that cadet and staff nominal rolls had to be in place so that the authorising person could confirm the ratio. That doesn’t work now with the fact that cadets can be added or removed post authorisation.
It’s also totally unnecessary. The event should be authorised on its own merit - we have to provide the required ratios all the time anyway so it can just be assumed that the event will be run with the correct ratio. Nobody comes down to our Squadrons to actively check that we aren’t understaffed before we commence each parade night -they just accept that we know we must have the numbers. Why should events be any different?
Would you say the same about the Adult IC not ticking their declaration? So we can approve events without any declarations because we’ve got an audit function afterwards?
How is travel not linked to the event? It’s another risk to life element which you have to conduct to get to the venue?
If I’m putting my name to approving an event, on my view I’m approving all elements of it - which includes compliance with ancillary policies such as travel, mandatory training, accommodation arrangements etc etc… Not simply the technical elements.
Surely your focus is on elements of the event itself and any centralised transport you may have arranged to support it. How units or individuals get to your event, and how those units declare compliance of such, is the responsibility of the units themselves, not of the organiser.
This would seem to fit in with the recent revision to ACTO10 whereby our responsibility for cadets starts and ends at the activity.
The default should be that cadets make their own way, but if attending squadrons take it upon themselves to arrange ancillary transport then that is the sole responsibility of that squadron commander.
we must also not lose sight of the need for a balance - ultimately all these tick boxes mean nothing. Someone ticks the box which says they’ll provide correct travel but it in no way guarantees that they will.
Even adding a good RA to an event doesn’t mean diddly squat if the person running the event doesn’t read it, update it, and implement it as required on the day… The WExO has no control over that - they merely trust that it’ll be done.
We already take lots of these things on trust.
We wouldn’t expect Sqns to text a group photo to the WExO of all staff and cadets present at the beginning of a parade night to prove that the ratio is correct… The WExO just trusts that the Sqn are following policy.
Ultimately, the same principal should apply to events. The organiser demonstrates that they’ve planned the event correctly and sensibly and the authorisation can be based on that. The same trust then can be applied to ensuring that policy is followed ‘on the day’.
A great example of this would be with regards to climatic injuries training.
Take this hypothetical (or is it?) scenario:
“I can’t authorise your event in 6 weeks time because not all your cadets have CI training recorded on SMS…”
“Everything else is in place… They will be doing it prior to the event…”
“I can’t do anything until it’s done. Resubmit it when they’ve done it.”
“Fine, but it’ll be ‘short notice’…”
Why refuse to authorise an event on those grounds? Madness I say!
We shouldn’t be inventing additional hoops to jump through unless they actually bring a tangible benefit.
Not sure if this is aimed at me or not, but my logic is this:
I am ticking a box which says I approve this event to go ahead. In making that decision, I am considering all aspects of the event from the moment we take charge of cadets to the moment they leave our care. At that point, I am signing to say (on behalf of the DDH) that I have assured myself that the event correctly implements our policies as it is presented. These policies are designed to ensure the safety of both staff and cadets. I am particularly interested in elements of the event which have been identified as risks to life by the organisation, because they are just that - risks to life. The other aspects I will review just to assure myself that they aren’t going to cause any issues.
IBN 006 is referring to self-made journeys on public transport etc; “RAFAC’s legal responsibility for cadets begins when they arrive at an activity or are met by RAFAC staff”. So travel by SOV is included in our legal responsibility.
Therefore the only way I can assure myself that units are complying with the policy is by them making the declaration that they are aware of the requirements in ACTO150, are maintaining a risk assessment and will comply with the controls therein.
When someone puts a minibus into a wall on the way back from an activity (because they aren’t aware of the controls in the ACTO150 RA or drivers hours policy), that I have approved without a travel declaration, I’ve got no particular desire to end up standing at an inquest for the first question to be asked of me… "but your approval system requires a declaration from all units who are driving cadets to the activity to confirm they are compliant with your corporately issued travel policy… why did you approve it without the declaration being completed’?
That is just my personal view; if you disagree then please point me to the training package/policy for activity approvers which explains how I am supposed to apply my thought process. It’s not just a protection for myself; it’s a protection for all in the approval chain, the organisation and the personnel involved.
Indeed, as the authorised Unwound just add that as a note. “Event Authorised on conditions that ration of X:Y is maintained and that all Cadets and Staff attending undergo mandatory climatic injuries training proper to the event”
The crux is that you cannot be “assured that it correctly implements policy”… You can only be confident that the person has told you that it will. Ultimately it’s down to the CFAVs running it to ensure that.
You as the authoriser cannot be expected to guarantee something which is beyond your control, so creating additional criteria that you are signing to say you are “assured” about doesn’t actually make anything any safer.
I’m not creating additional criteria though. The organisation says the declaration is good enough, but is required - so that’s what I expect to be done.
You may not be, but the organisation seems to have a habit of doing so… The declaration being one of those - It doesn’t actually achieve or guarantee anything, so one has to ask “what is its purpose?”
Sadly though there are others out there who are creating further local rules about what can and can’t be signed off outwith the Corps policy.
The irony with your example above is that where you’ve signed off an event without a travel declaration and they crash the bus - yes, you might be in trouble because they could try to claim that they didn’t know.
Before the declaration was introduced you’d have been fine - because the policy says that the Sqn must do xyz and it’s their responsibility to be aware of that. You had no control over what they actually do so can’t be accountable for their actions. You still have no control, but now you’re for it if you authorise it without the tick.
The net result is that nothing is actually any more or less safe and that everyone is just ticking a box for the sake of it.
