Just had a nose around the site and the topic has been brought up a few years ago here. However, I’ve recently had a cadet close to being removed from flying because they didn’t have a TG21, so it looks as though the practice still hasn’t been resolved unless I’ve missed something?
So, could anyone on here please explain why we need separate and additional consent on TG21s for activities already covered under F3822As? To me, this is duplication of effort and a classic admin burden!
Which AEF?
Reason for asking is that I came across this at our local AEF but their point of view was they just needed confirmation of next of kin details be it TG21, 3822, or 3722a
They were happy for alternatives to TG forms they just needed that bit of info.
It wasn’t at an AEF, separate flying activity, but still in British Military Aircraft as stated on F3822A.
AEFs do not need NOK details, they don’t need TG21 or TG23s. In the event of an accident KINFORMING is done by JCCC who have access to the NOK details.
The reason why some Wings insist in TG23 is for the transport of cadets to AEF. There is no guaranteed access to med records in SMS and the only way to know that a (or the correct number of) TG23 is needed is if a TG21 is also produced.
That might well be the case (& I agree with your point of view) but The AEF disagreed & it’s easier to acquiesce than spend the time debating.
Same as for AEF / VGS in terms of requirement for TG21/23’s as far as ACTO 010 is concerned, but as others have said, if people ask for them it’s a lot easier to just do it. 
But that’s the point and why we have an admin burden; we don’t need this duplication of forms all the time. As soon as someone says they need them and we point them at ACTO 010 or whatever, that should be enough.
As soon as this happens you need to challenge it and refer them to the policy.
This is why we have OF5s, to resolve these issues.
We all need to challenge rubbish rules, learn to ask why. Problem is, HQRAFAC aren’t set up to receive questions like that. The RAF have F760s, F765s and QORs, I’ll bet that if you were to send any of these to our illustrious HQ, they’d have no clue what to do. The only resort would be to email someone but then there’s no log, timescales, feedback or holding someone’s feet to a fire when nothing happens.
TBF the Valuing our Volunteers Teams group is a good place to raise challenge and RC(N) is responsive.
I agree, but that shouldn’t be how things are done and it doesn’t allow for continued failures to be escalated to AOC 22 Gp staff. HQRAFAC are an MoD organisation and therefore the MoD’s QA processes and practices should apply to them, just as much as they do to any other formation.
There used to be a Quality Manager at HQRAFAC, but I don’t know whether they still have one.
Unfortunately as so frequently the case the policies & processes of an organisation are often not designed or adaptable for volunteers.
This then means means that any MoD QA process then hits the barrier of
The issue here is that the person wanting the TG forms believes they are necessary to cover their backside.
So the question in the first instance is, why do you need TG forms?
Because it’s policy? No it isn’t
Next Q. why do you feel you need them?
Just in case, because of incident etc
MoD QA processes are irrelevant if volunteers are doing their own thing anyway.
I’m imagining this.
Honestly, the dumpster fire this would be amazing. You’d be able to see their little heads exploding from orbit.
A good point and quite true. My comment regarding QA processes was more a general one for the plethora of stupid/irrelevant/inefficient tasks we get asked to do, with apparently little available to us to challenge or change things. The VoV route, whilst a good system to get things off our chests, shouldn’t be the official route we take for HQ procedural errors and inefficiencies given that HQRAFAC is an MoD formation and therefore (in theory at least) part of the HQ 22 Gp/HQAIR QA system.
Going back to my original comment, and you’ve hit the nail on the head in your last lines, this particular admin burden has been created entirely by us, the volunteers, thinking that we need additional consent despite policy quite clearly saying otherwise, so I suspect that even the good Gp Capt Leeming would be unable to do much to change mindsets. How do we change that? Have we become trapped in what used to be an HQ-driven ‘belt and braces’ approach to admin?
That is a question that opens a Pandora’s box of worms and is probably best debated over a beer in pub philosophy. The threat of thread splintering is high with this one 
Presumably there’s no recording and tracking of reports and resolutions for investigation and pattern recognition? It would be a massive ball ache if that was the reality. Plus, an issue experienced in multiple places or multiple times may only get reported once or at least fewer than reality should dictate, because people can see it there and don’t add on.
Keeping topic (& to the avoid having to get a de-fib out for the mods) we need to go back to first principles.
So we want an under 18 to fly in aircraft. The risk of something going wrong is non-zero & if it does then the injury is likly to be sever if not death.
So we need parental consent.
We also need to make sure that the cadet is medically fit & not going to cause an issue in the air.
So we need a med declaration. We’ll just want the medical conditions we are interested in so we don’t have to guess each time what a declaration means & it needs to be current.
Ok so as the person managing the risk I need to assure myself that there is parental consent & the cadet is fit to fly.
This can be done on a paperform. Can the medical declaration be also used a concent to fly? Well yes otherwise why would you make the declaration. So AV med form is required.
What other permission do I need? I need to make sure that that they are bonefide (air) cadets (& not some parents kid on a jolly). So the 3822/3822a/My RAFAC can confirm identity with or without the 2FTS form although I should be able to take this on trust.
Now (& this is where trust issues come in) as the person in charge of the safety what happens if a cadet gets injured?
Well we treat them & tell the parents.
Who tells the parents? The escorting staff should do.
Do the escorting staff know who or to contact the parents? We’ll normally they do but it’s often a new CI or a staff cadet & they can’t access the electronic records as their CO hasn’t granted them permission.
Well I don’t want to faff if something does go wrong an deal with incompetent or inexperienced staff so I will request the additional paperwork of the next of kin is present do the escorting staff can inform us something happens.
But we already have a form for that it’s a TG21 form. So I’ll ask for that so if something does happen I can move quickly in a crisis & I’m not dependent on other people I don’t know.
And thus this is how bureaucracies grow. To stop this we have to have volunteers trusting other volunteers & give that reassurance so people can relax.
We probably also have to go back to base principles on many things and give an explanation/rationale when creating regulations e.g.
“ in order to ensure that a cadet is fit to fly & reduce the probability of medical issues whilst in flight, a recently completed AV med form is required”
In North region - this is exactly how things are done. On an annual basis RC(N) sends out an email reminding all about his challenge everything policy. He is more than happy to receive challenge and will always respond. Wish there were more like him running the org.
Though, I would add two points…
If an inexperienced CI doesn’t have access to SMS yet; then their OC/ Adj / Sqn Aviation Officer is duty bound (and certainly morally bound) to supply them with not only the documents they need (in this case, a pdf or printout of the ‘contact’ report from the SMS event) but also with a thorough briefing.
Making everyone bring a TG21 is not necessary.
Instead of wasting time ensuring that everyone is told to bring one, the OC / Adj / &c could just get on with printing that single NOK contact details sheet; which is far better for the purpose than a dozen TG21s.
If an inexperienced CI is left alone with the responsibility for the cadets and one gets injured, I think that the biggest concern is whether they’ll know how to handle the incident at all…
Which piece of paper they eventually look at for details is almost completely irrelevant if they don’t know what they’re supposed to actually do.
In both cases the key is not to take unnecessary paperwork; but to ensure that inexperienced staff are not left to fend for themselves without support.
Arguably, if there is an AEF event serious enough to be contacting the parents, then it’s probably not something minor; and in the event of a major AEF issue, I’d not be calling parents directly - I’d be on the phone to the WExO duty mobile to let them deal with the background stuff whilst I look after the other cadets.
