isn’t this true for all mental health related conditions (injuries)?
If we were asking the same for depression or anxiety would this not be the same process?
And to be fair most of my Dr appointments anyway…sit there, have a conversation about how I am coping with my confirm “all is well” and the current medication dose is working just fine, offer some pleasantries about the weather/time of year and be off
Also (now I have taken a closer look)
who on earth decided that
If Cadet has used oral steroids or antibiotics to treat Asthma within the last 6 months start F6424 procedure
is an appropriate measure?
As a long time “sufferer”* of asthma I have been taking an oral steriod everyday for the last 20+ years.
the “brown” preventer medication ( Clenil Modulite/ beclometasone) prescribed to asthma sufferers is an oral steroid.
It is typically taken in one or two doses at time, once or twice a day to control asthma…it is unlikely you’re “average” asthma sufferer would have gone 6 hours without taking a oral steroid for a AEF experience, let alone 6 months!
This line is condemning nearly all asthma sufferers to a Drs appointment prior to flying regardless if they’re asthma is so well controlled CFAVs would have no clue save for a TG23 being handed in when required.
(i’ve also no clue what Step 1, 2 and 3 refer to and I have had asthma almost from birth, no one had indicated what step i am.)
*my asthma is mild and can count on the stripes on my rank slide how many times it has been “critical” /an attack - but arguable because I correctly manage it
It’s really badly worded, IMHO, and I think this question refers to oral steroid tablets, which I’ve had to use twice in my life.
On both occasions my asthma has been absolutely fine within a few days, so I’ve no idea what the 6 months BS is about - I can tell you it’s definitely not based on medical facts though. Just sounds like a way to whittle down the number of fliers when we don’t have sufficient capacity to fly everyone that should be able to fly.
…to only those capable of passing an RAF pilot fitness test by the sounds of it
This does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Once signed off by a GP isn’t the F6424 valid for 2 years?
Most GP’s aren’t AvMED trained so some may be over cautious and sign a cadet off as unfit?
The risk comes when parents/ cadets don’t disclose a condition.
I am personally aware of one incident where this was the case and this change may increase the incidence of this?
My experience suggests that it is usually the squadron escorting staff that can fill in some detail of a cadets condition. I.e. how they might behave in an aircraft in a stressful situation?
Some conditions and a cadets fitness to act on their own initiative in the aircraft are usually indicated when mandatory seat training is done.
You simply cannot account for every eventuality and just because a cadet has a F6424 doesn’t mean their condition won’t manifest in a negative way whilst in the air.
This will definitely become more of a thing.
Why will it become more of a thing?
Up to V3 it was straight to 6424 anyway, it was V4 that OC decision to approve or refer to 6424 came in.
Most probably never noticed.
There is an ever increasing incidence of suspicion of a condition, typically things like ASD, ADHD etc. I’m specifically talking about a pre-diagnosis stage.
I’ve had cadets before who appear to have one of the conditions (I had around a decade of paid youth work before joining the Corps, so can spot signs of some of them fairly easily) but whose parents have absolutely sworn blind that their child is neuronormative. Much of this is because they fear their child will miss out on activities should any suspicion be disclosed.
As incidence rates increase, and the paperwork gets tighter at the same time, it’s only natural that more parents will be less open to their child potentially having a learning difference. To the cadet’s detriment.
Same stuff in the forces. Going to the med centre to seek help for even relatively minor things can really screw you, even if it’s just while investigations are ongoing and nothing concrete is found.
You can credibly argue it’s a necessary safety measure, but many humans aren’t inclined to pause or end their own careers voluntarily unless the problems become, often times, acute.
Whereas I dare say they’d seek support sooner if there weren’t what could be described as “punitive” responses.
Totally get why parents of kids who are “getting by” or otherwise seemingly doing well wouldn’t seek a diagnosis.
Yes, but this is reversing a change that was only in effect for a very short period, not becoming comparatively more restrictive than any long standing norm.
What you describe is an issue, but this change isn’t a cause of that.
I am not medically trained to make a decision on someone’s fitness. I neither want the responsibility of saying “yes” to someone who then has a problem, or indeed “no” to someone who then gets the ok from their Dr only for a parent to then whinge at me about missed opportunities that ‘I caused’.
Not quite the same thing I’m thinking of.
If I have a suspicion, I can have the conversation with the parent. Should they agree to undergo a consultation then I’ll fully explain the process and that it means their cadet won’t be able to fly until they’ve reached the conclusion, along with the reasons why that decision has been made. If it then turns out that there was nothing to worry about, I’ll do my best to bump them to the top of the list for the next slot.
However, if the parent refuses outright any suggestion of learning differences, then I lack any meaningful authority to halt their flying until they start the diagnosis assessment process. I mean I could always refuse them a slot, but that would just end up with a complaint and investigation which would inevitably side with the parent.
I am also talking about the longer-term trend, not just this little change to the paperwork.
We most certainly did & thought that there had been an unusual outbreak of commons sense!
My last 3 Medical’s at 2 different GP’s for my HGV has been £120
To my knowledge, GP surgeries can charge whatever they like for letters etc and if you get last minute slots, these forms won’t be done quickly.
My concern is that some kids are going to miss out on flying/gliding due to these changes.
The 6424 lasts for 2 years, (off the top of my head!) so upon signing the cadet up if they need one get them one straight away, and start the renewal process 3 months before the old one expires. You don’t have to wait for a flying slot to start the process or a new form for each flying slot.
This way they’ll always have one and then just need an Avmed like normal on all flying opportunities.
If squadron commanders understand the requirements and parents are on the ball there’s no reason for cadets to miss out.
The question, of course, is whether V4 remains valid now V5 has been published - particularly relevant if V5 now listed something V4 didn’t but for which the cadet has either a diagnosis, or is under investigation for??
RAFAC increasing the admin burden on the NHS too???
Why does RAFAC seem to increase the administrative burden on its volunteers (and others), rather spending TRF-scale monies on employing more central staff to do stuff?
Surely aiming to reduce the administrative burden on the volunteers should be HQ’s raison d’être?
Having had an Av Med Form “discrepancy” last gliding, the VGS duty supervisor was very thorough in checking versions of the forms & content. I would say that the new version is more restrictive & therefore has to be the version used. For RIAT, I think one cadet had used an previous version of TG21 & had to re-do it.
True - but there has to be a balance against wasted medical fees versus availability for flying. I reckon that with v.5 of the Av Med Form, that will push maybe 10% of our cadets into the F6424 requirement?
Have you noticed that the ‘paper’ version on sharepoint is v.5 whereas the ‘electronic’ version is v.7?
Surely this is also going to cause issues, seeing as both versions will eventually be printed.
Not to sure how it would be best to ‘number’ the revision, perhaps by date?