Mine is already creating additional rules. An arbitrary figure for journey time or miles travelled over which I have to include a transport risk assessment.
Thereās a logic to thatā¦
Indeed, ticking the same box a dozen times a week as events are added just makes people indifferent to it - after the 10th time they donāt even read the words any more. It becomes merely a routine that one follows without thought, because nothing ever changes - itās the same āSure, Iāll follow the rules - the same as we do every timeā.
They might as well just replace the tick box with small print which reads āBy clicking āSubmitā I declare that Iāll follow all the usual rulesā¦ā for all the difference it makes.
2 Likes
Totally agree and Iām a firm believer in the fact that itās the competence of the people on the ground that make things safe. Evidencing the planning and preparation and compliance only comes into play for those 0.05% of times where things go wrong.
1 Like
If only the people higher up followed the same logical thought processā¦
It seems to typify the current approach - reactive rather than proactive. We suffer some serious accidents or injuries which should have been avoided, but then rather than find ways to better ensure that things are actually safer in the future they instead just create a reactive policy which says ānobody does anything unless theyāve watched this video or sat through this powerpoint or ticked this boxā.
āā¦oh well, if thereās a powerpoint presentationā¦ā
3 Likes
Itās ironic that some are not approving events until travel declarations are completed by all units, which is not a policy requirement.
While of the 63 locally approved events since the introduction of ACTO 10 within my wing not a single audit has been completed (25% audit required by policy)
Show me the policy for what is required on an SMS application for it to be approved. ACTO 10 is more concerned with who approves rather than what is required, although I grant you it does talk in places about RAs / PLI being uploaded (or not).
ACTO 10 states: āEach participating Sqn/DF Cdr for that event will be required to digitally sign a transport declaration for their attending cadets.ā
This to me means if you arenāt doing it, the event isnāt in accordance with the extant policy.
But surely if it doesnāt say it is required, we are to think it isnāt? What makes life easier for units should be the deciding factor. It doesnāt impact on safety (because as discussed me ticking a box doesnāt prove anything).
But it says it is required. It just doesnāt have āto achieve approvalā in the sentence; surely thatās inferred from the fact it is a requirementā¦
Thereās zero point in it being required after the fact. Arguably zero point in it at all, as weāve discussed previously, but it is what it is at the moment.
@james_elliott we need a policy clarification!
1 Like
Iām not against your viewpoint, but this should be clear in the policy.
I am concerned by the lack of audit that is being completed locally.
Might need to use that whistle blowing policy we have now ā¦
going off topic now
does it indicate when these audits are completed? it could be 25% across a 4 year period, and so only consider everything in year 3.
or is this the first 25 in every 100 events, then the counter reset?
perhaps picked randomly, 1 event from each unit in the wing + one Wing event before being reset??
the 25% audit is all well and good but if the conditions of that 25% are not set it is arbitrary
SMS should provide 25% of activities for audit.
Surely it should be a dip sample which can be more specific if required, as for time frame I would say it should be something that you do once a month or once a quarter. (Are Region and Corps also Dip Sampling to make sure Wings are doing it right?)
For me I would do it quarterly and would check 25% of each Squadrons activities, after my first round I would then be looking to pay more attention to people who have had feedback than those who are already getting it all correct. (Whilst still looking at some of thereās).
The word āparticipatingā is key, at Wg level I donāt know which Units are taking part until the Cadet sign up deadline (and not even then sometimes, with Units not using Portal).
So I have a load of unsigned travel declarations from Sqns that might for perfectly sound reasons not be sending cadets.
What would work - for me at least - is when a Cadet registers from 123 Anytown Sqn SMS then adds the travel declaration box for that Sqn to the activity and alerts their staff.
That way, no cadets going, nothing to sign, no delays. And I have fewer Sqns to chase up.
Simples. @james_elliott can that be done?
This to me suggests a flaw in the functionality - you only have to sign the declaration if you have cadets attending. Units who havenāt signed it, but arenāt sending any cadets, are simply muddying the waters when it comes to event approval.
So weāre potentially back to removal of non-attending units before seeking approvalā¦except the cadet list can continue to be amendedā¦
@james_elliott would it be possible to make the traffic light for travel dec switch red/green based only on attending units, not invited units?
1 Like
On the other hand we as a unit who are invited to events, will wait to see if our cadets sign up and then the massive question on travel - who is providing what, coach/sov/pov! this is never established until the Event org knows how many and from where!!!
SOOO how can we declare if we donāt know we are providing or notā¦
I would say we know whether or not we (the squadron) are going to be in a position to provide directly organised transport to the vast majority of events. Perhaps thereās some ambiguity if we were to throw our cadets onto another squadronās transport - but surely we couldnāt be held accountable as an āorganiserā if that transport isnāt ACTO compliantā¦
Perhaps a change to the wording:
āThe unit will be providing Any transport provided by the unit will beā¦ā
You can always initially declare as ānotā, then change it later when you find out that actually you are!
2 Likes
Thats fine however if i ādeclare NOTā and i am not going then i am relying on a) the OC or b) a member of staff who is going to change the declaration.
If its not changed who knows what would/could happen.
"The Unit Cdr or an attending member of Staff must confirm the unit is compliant with [ACTO 150], or that the attendees are responsible for making their own travel arrangements. "
And who does the audit? Is there training available? What are the consequences for failing the audit?
Easy someone saying SMS will conduct an audit (no slight on you Incubus) but without the follow up actions in place, the threat is like a toothless dog.
I think what heās saying is that instead of the person conducting the audit picking 25% of the activities the systems itself should flag 25% of all activities to be audited.
Itās done by a Senior Member of Wing Staff who has a copy of ACTO 10 to work to.
1 Like