I understand that consistently failing an audit on self-approval will result in wing removing the ability for that individual to self-approve activities. That would then require some sort of retraining to ensure that they can be trusted to approve again and can regain the rights.
As for specifics of the audit and training - it is not my problem but I’d be surprised if such a thing existed 
For us it’s the WExO doing the auditing. And yes, if you fail them on numerous occasions you have your ability to self-auth removed.
WExO would seem to be the obvious choice.
Unsure why.
Their experience of actually running activities varies wildley between wings.
Yes a majority of paperwork required is HS tick box, but alot of paperwork is experienced based.
Wing commander would surely be better placed?
if it was up to our WExo (who claim they need a 9 day working week given the workload they have) i very much doubt we’ll see 5% audited let alone 25%!!
It’s only stuff which is being self approved by Squadrons that they are auditing, these are things which previously would have been authorised by the WExO hence why they should know what they are looking for.
Things that go to an SME for sign off are still audited by a more senior SME, so WATTO is audited by the RATTO etc.
ah well that does make more sense!
That’s the assumption im questioning… when was the last time a wexo went on bag pack or a like?
By the same token when was the last time the average Wg Cdr did/organised anything at sqn level in the last say 5 years. Our Wg Cdr has been “on Wing” since the early 00s, and didn’t have wing jobs that required organising more than tea and biccies.
The ATC world has changed wrt activities since many Wg Cdrs last dirtied their hands.
God knows why WExOs were ever deemed appropriate to approve things.
Yeah but they will.have done some relevant activities at some point.
Unlike most wexos!
This is a holding statement - I have read what has been said and I will respond in due course once the baby has decided it is time to sleep!
These are some slightly different words to make the forum software happy.
We have agreed this will go into the next version of ACTO 10 at para 1 - so it will say something like:
It is common sense that the Organisation expects events to be authorised - but you are right, we will spell it out in black and white if that is required.
This has been identified and the relevant RC will be supplied with the relevant information to take action to fix this.
Agree. Transport is the greatest risk to life activity component and it is essential that there is assurances in place from the unit that they are delivering the transport component in line with policy.
But it does mean that during an incident investigations, there is evidence that you declared that transport is being organised in line with the policies.
It is a requirement and the authorisation piece I have already covered.
25% of all locally authorised low risk events are to be subject to audit. This is usually done by the WExO but it can be done by various people and that is all there in the policy.
Regions and Wings are given a dashboard on SMS which tell them exactly how they are performing and the magic number is the 25% for ‘audited events’. So, if a Wing is getting 80% on ‘audited events’ then they are not applying ACTO 10 properly and are doing far too much…if they are achieving 25.6%, then they have it just right in line with policy.
I can tell you that the performance is variable across the Corps and it is the line managers responsibility to work with those who are not performing.
SMS identifies (automatically) one in four of the locally authorised events by unit to be subjected to audit - but any event can be audited on an intelligence-led basis i.e. whistleblowing etc.
In SMS 5.2.4 (release notes at https://rafac.sharepoint.com/sites/smsportal/SitePages/SMS-5.2.4-Release-Notes.aspx) it will be much more obvious from the events dashboards whether or not an event is advertised in Cadet Portal and whether or not the unit has signed their travel declaration.
You need to read ACTO 10 as all of this is explained and there are links to the training that has been provided.
Again, read ACTO 10 and look at the flowcharts for failed audits.
What we don’t do is specify what constitutes a major or minor non-conformance etc as that was a particular rabbit hole we didn’t want to go down.
The audit is a governance check, not authorisation - again, ACTO 10 refers. The WExO is very well placed to look at the evidence provided in the event application and make a judgement call as to whether the event meets the policy requirements or not. I do accept that there have been instances of events failing audit for reasons that are, quite frankly, incorrect - but it is up to the units to challenge these outcomes through the chain of command as appropriate. I know some of you won’t like that answer, but that is how it works.
Again, read ACTO 10 and you will find that they are able to conduct audits.
This.
For the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record…
That’s not an assurance of anything. There is no practical way that WExOs (or anyone else in the CoC frankly) can ensure that policy is being followed here - short of turning up at the start of every event to read the local transport RA and physically check that it it being implemented as written.
This, just as with every other matter of policy and safety, is taken solely on trust.
Someone could be routinely ticking that box and yet not bothering to think about travel.
In fact because it has become such a routine I’d wager that in the majority of cases ticking of the box is at best incidental to consideration given to transport. It’s now just a radio button with no meaning that we have to remember to click before we can progress.
If I take a group out walking there isn’t a tick box which says “I promise not to let my cadets play on the side of crumbling cliffs”. We merely trust in my good judgement supported by my training and quals.
Let’s call a spade a spade - the only purpose the travel declaration tickbox serves is to hang someone out to dry after the fact.
That’s one way of looking at it. Having been on the fringes of a serious RIDDOR investigation by the HSE (not in this organisation), it’s not a pleasant place to be and at that point, whoever is on the receiving end of that particular enema will be thanking their lucky stars that someone made you document your plan and checked/challenged that they had written a suitable and sufficient risk assessment that was in line with the current organisational policy.
That is of course assuming they followed said plan, and didn’t just throw some documents at the system in order to get an authorisation.
That is, in a way, my point.
We were already required to properly plan and document, because long before we had a box to tick on SMS the policy told us that we have to. Most people probably did it; some people probably didn’t.
The only difference now is that as well as planning and documenting we have to click a button to say “I’ve done this”. Most people probably still do plan and document; some people probably don’t - Despite clicking the button.
The declaration doesn’t make the event safer, but it does give the CoC additional rope with which to hang someone who ticks the box but doesn’t do the work.
I had a feeling that we were arguing the same point
Yeah, I think so.
I am slightly concerned that there appear to be voices high up who don’t quite appear to understand what affects safety and what doesn’t.
I mean, we’ve long known that to be the case - our previous CESO for example used to routinely get it wrong.
I was referring to the overall event display, not an attending unit’s view. So you could have 1000 units invited, only a few attending, and for the purposes of authorisation/chasing judge it only on those attending.
OK so assuming transport is the greatest risk in anything we do, road accidents are not a result of a lack of documentation. I’ve been involved in two RTAs in 34 years of driving and in both cases all documentation on both sides was in place and nothing else untoward. So quite how ticking a box makes any difference in the outcome is and does allude me somewhat. By the same token not having any documentation doesn’t increase the risk of an accident.
So far I’ve ticked the not arranging box as parents have had to take and collect their kiddywinks.
Well done. You’ve used the system properly.