The ‘greater good’; reminds me of a film 
4 Likes
Not sure on that
Never were, I thought? But anyway, not all staff in the UAS are DBS cleared, so they can’t have access to cadet personal data.
It would make sense to me for OC AEF to have a BADER account, with access to cadet data, ACTOs etc. After all, they will hold a DBS clearance. And presumably have to complete all the mandatory stuff such as RFI regularly.
2 Likes
“Thank you for your simple solution to the problem. We will review it and publish our findings around Q2 2029.”
2 Likes
The greater good
1 Like
ALL AEF staff including the UAS permanent staff hold DBS clearances or even DV clearance. They have to if they are dealing with cadets. All our permanent pilots fly cadets if required.
When I said RAFAC, AEF staff were still commissioned and maintained by HQ RAFAC until 1st April 24. We then became VRT (AEF) and under control of 6FTS.
1 Like
Not true, though, for Babcock contractors, as I understand it? Nor UAS students?
I can only speak about what happens at our AEF. Others may work differently.
UAS aren’t really classed as UAS staff per sè. They are students and have no contact with cadets. Babcock personnel do not deal with cadet paperwork so wouldn’t need access to cadet details ie permission to fly etc. The requirement for 2 members of staff is to allow one to be in the kitting bay with the cadets waiting to fly which gives the DBS cover required.
1 Like
Any ideas on the logic behind an additional escorting officer now being recommended if the primary escorting officer is related to one of the cadets??
In case there’s an accident involving their child
Hi
DBS / BPSS is.not a clearence it’s a screening standard. Clearences would CTC / SC / DV etc
The misunderstanding is that there is no need for a CFAV to be in the cadet waiting area if all adult personnel who might be in there are DBS cleared. So, the one CFAV can be in the squippers’ hut. That was the practice from at least 2003 (when I joined) to 2022 or so. What changed? Is there any evidence that was used to justify this change? The result is a reduction in cadet opportunities because even CCF, let alone ATC, are struggling to get two adults to accompany a group of 8 cadets; so some squadrons/sections are not flying.
Add to this the irony that at my closest AEF, the squippers’ hut is currently u/s so all the activity is in one building, yet two CFAV are still required.
Again, I can only speak from our perspective.
Our kitting room is in a separate building so in our situation 2 escorting staff are a must. 1 in the kitting room and 1 in the briefing room however, iirc, Staff Cadets (over 18) can act as staff in some situations so this may ease things slightly. Admittedly probably not for CCFs.
If the briefing and kitting room are one and the same then you could argue the need for 2 staff however, there is also the need to be safeguarding compliant. If you’re struggling for staff on a particular day it may be worth asking either your TEST NCO to cover or even someone from the CCF(Army) section.
Unfortunately I’m not in a position to change policy but it may be worth speaking to SO1 Flying Policy at HQ RAFAC.
Is it not just that two staff should generally be the minimum for any event. Single staff member leave no room for problems.
Apparently it’s CFAV DBS personell that have to be present so if they are not RAFAC then the DBS doesnt count (alledegly). Our wing has 2 sqns going to same allotment so there are 2 RAFAC CFAV present. It may be different interpretation of same rules or yet again wings adding their own overkill twist on things.
Hmm. If only one CCF unit goes, then I can’t see why the adults present can’t just both hold school DBS clearances. But if you mix units, then there would be an argument that both need RAFAC ones so the other unit has assurance that the staff are cleared.
But then, schools routinely accept one another’s clearances - otherwise, sports events would become very difficult.
1 Like
So
about that
in all seriousness can any of the CFAVs on here access it, because the link on CP takes me to a page saying access denied
It would appear that ACTO’s 034 , 036 & 037 - all flying opportunities - have been quietly removed from Sharepoint!