The same MT Warrant Officer that said you couldn’t go to the supermarket for supplies for your camp because that’s not an authorised use, or stop at a Service Station for lunch because it’s only for use to transport from A to B as listed on the paperwork.
Just another example of HQAC paid staff not living in the real world.
Sounds like madness unless you drive professionally and what you do outside work surely doesn’t count to statutory driving hours.
So someone feels hungry, loses concentration with a lowering blood sugar and has an RTC, the driver loses out both ways. Didn’t stop because they weren’t authorised and responsible for an RTC because they were hungry.
Some people need dragging and kicking into life outside the wire
It is in acp300
Its not about work / non work, it is about fatigue and tiredness. Equallyvsoneone could do a strenous non driving job then drive for cadets whilst tired and fatigued, then have an accident.
Its is not a 1 cap fits all, and not all the policy is sensible either. For e g stopping for lunch on a service station so driver gets a rest is actually sensible. But why sensible get in the way of bad policy 
It’s a case of bringing in the wrong person for the job. The idea was to get someone to look at the MT side to make sure things were covered.
The result was someone who had no experience of civilian driver or fleet management so couldn’t apply the legislation to our weird aspect of the RAF as the safeguards they normally relied on don’t exist.
As with much of policy when we’re beholden to what the MOD or RAF say, it’s not written for our use case, but instead of getting inclusions or exemptions we just bend ourselves to fit in a different shaped hole, because those in charge of applying those policies don’t understand the world outside the wire.
They also conveniently forget or ignore (or are somehow ignorant to) how certain aspects of policy are bent, ignored, or flouted. How many SP have you seen with green or white fleet in a services Maccies or a supermarket? Was that on their works ticket? If policy genuinely says no, why aren’t they held to that? Or are we simply, once again, being held to an overzealous interpretation?
So a new IBN has just dropped.
This is once again all getting a bit confusing with the various over lapping policy documents on this matter. Why is this not all just contained within ACTO 10, or similar, policy?
This section introduces a must, could, should etc which relates to “both the relative priority of an activity and the eligibility for Volunteer Allowance”. Yet the table at Annex A has items that are ‘Must’ but VA says no. And the other way around too…
And shooting activities that must have service MT for the movement of rifles, but are not eligible for transport.
How has we just downgraded AEF to be a “non-foundational” part of the Air Cadet Experience???
Activity Air Experience Flying (using MoD assets) | Category Group Flying | Foundation? Non-foundation | Activity Priority Should
The SAM also introduces the terms ‘foundation’ and ‘non-foundation’, aligning with the forthcoming Progressive Training Syllabus (PTS). ‘Foundation’ activities are directly related to elements of the PTS required for cadet classification achievement. Elective (non-foundation) activities are those outside of these core requirements.
Another bit that’s pretty annoying:
Regional Variations: Some differences in how CACE is applied may exist based on regional factors, but efficiency and value for money must always be a priority.
Surely safety is priority number 1? If we start prioritising efficiency and VFM then we start doing silly things like not sending enough staff because ‘it costs too much’. etc.
There are 2 AEF lines. I assume the former “AEF” is talking about tutor flying, and is Foundation. The latter, “Air Experience Flying (using MoD assets)” I assume is talking about getting in a Chinook type flights?
Ahhh, missed the first one. yeah I guess so
Wait, no, there’s 3 lines. There’s also “UK Military Air Experience Flying”. So I have no clue at all what each is referring to?
They are all different in the various columns, too. But no explanation of what each is actually referring to?
What is the difference between Air Experience Flying (using MoD assets) and UK Military Air Experience Flying and how if they are both indemnified does one type need insurance & CACE?
Does CACE = Yes in the table, overrule the CACE requirements further up the document?
Silver level Fieldcraft is neither foundation or non-foundation, yet attracts Transport, VA & Subsistence, is indemnified but also requires insurance and also needs a CACE, and is marked as Should.
Road Marching is non-foundation and marked as could for all levels, yet gets VA & Travel across all levels, meanwhile the only shooting that attracts VA (excluding SATT courses) is Full Bore Target (L81), despite the L81 to be out of service at the end of this year.
The day RAFAC makes things simple and easy to understand will the day it folds under the weight of its own bureaucracy and ceases to exist.
So the only “Musts” are
‘Must’ indicates that the activity should be prioritised; VA must be awarded for ‘must’ activities.
and the only “Must Nots” are
‘Must not’ signifies an absolute prohibition, and VA must not be awarded.
So ACPS is both a Must and a Must Not depending on if you use the acronym or not? 
is there not a contradiction in that National Camp is a Must but QAIC is not a must?
Also i have been under the impression for 8 or so years the likes of QAIC and RIAT were administered as “Annual camps” so why split them out here? even more so where one is a must and the other not?
Well of course
