Consent Forms

[Squadgy]

@willow

If AEFs had access to Bader they could log into SMS adding all their RA’s etc to the flying event and all the cadet names could be added as normal and all the relevant details would be made available at the click of a button (Simple).

It is very unlikely that AEFs will be given access to SMS. The VR(T) are no longer part of RAFAC and the civilian safety equipment fitters aren’t even DBS holders, so wouldn’t be granted access to cadet details.

[109115]

@Squadgy

It is very unlikely that AEFs will be given access to SMS. The VR(T) are no longer part of RAFAC and the civilian safety equipment fitters aren’t even DBS holders, so wouldn’t be granted access to cadet details.

I believe this all lies in the ‘too difficult to deal with’ tray at HQRAFAC at present?

It appears we are in a state of flux. Some cadets/staff present at an AEF with F3822’s, TG21’s Av Med 1 and others with an SMS report and Av Med 1. AEF staff are often presented with the whole spectrum of paperwork, most of which is not required.

One issue that AEF’s experience is cadets having a cross on the medical column of the SMS report, but no indication of a medical issue on the Av Med 1. AEF staff are then having to enquire with the cadet what medical issue they have to check that it’s not a miss-declaration on the Av Med1 or a genuine no fly medical issue?

I don’t think giving AEF staff access to SMS is the answer, just some clarification from HQRAFAC to Sqn Commanders (ACTO 31)?

AEF pilots have been ‘forgotten’ by HQRAFAC. We’ve simply dropped off their list. As an AEF pilot if I’m not part of the RAFAC, then which part of the RAF am I part of? I still claim my VA and HTD from them?

[Paracetamol]

@cygnus_maximus

why not annually

Go away please.

[Squadgy]

@109115

As an AEF pilot if I’m not part of the RAFAC, then which part of the RAF am I part of?

6FTS, which forms part of 22Gp, but is not under Keeling’s command.

[pEp]

@109115

One issue that AEF’s experience is cadets having a cross on the medical column of the SMS report, but no indication of a medical issue on the Av Med 1. AEF staff are then having to enquire with the cadet what medical issue they have to check that it’s not a miss-declaration on the Av Med1 or a genuine no fly medical issue?

We have this issue too - often caused by things like hayfever or “an allergy to guinea pigs” was one we have declared.

Comes up every time on the medical info, means people have to bring a TG23 for everything they do, despite us never (to my knowledge) doing ahy activity that involves guinea pigs.

[Squadgy]

@109115

One issue that AEF’s experience is cadets having a cross on the medical column of the SMS report, but no indication of a medical issue on the Av Med 1

In which case this is poor design of the SMS Report (I assume you mean the Aviation Criteria Report?). I’d have thought (perhaps wrongly having not come across this issue), that it would only show a cross if it was an AvMed medical issue.

Sounds like one for VSDT to sort (@james_elliott )

[mprentice1]

James Elliot isn’t involved with the Digital Team anymore, the guy you want is @Ben_Wakefield

[daws1159]

@109115

One issue that AEF’s experience is cadets having a cross on the medical column of the SMS report, but no indication of a medical issue on the Av Med 1.

Surely the position should then be “it’s not on the Av Med 1 form so it must be a condition not covered by the form ergo no issue”

I have taken my medical issue off of SMS ever since the system started highlighting to every Tom, Dick and Harry who didn’t need to know that I had one.

[109115]

@daws1159

Surely the position should then be “it’s not on the Av Med 1 form so it must be a condition not covered by the form ergo no issue”

Easy to say.

Or it could be that the cadet has a medical issue that should be declared, but that box has been ticked incorrectly on the Av Med1?

[Cadet04]

@pEp

people have to bring a TG23 for everything they do, despite us never (to my knowledge) doing ahy activity that involves guinea pigs.

The form states you need a TG23 if you’ve ever had headaches… who hasn’t!!!

[Squirrel]

@Squadgy

The Aviation Criteria Report shows that a cadet has a med issue, but not what that condition is

Correct. Which is why AvMed 1, for flying, and TG23 for general activities still have value.

My point was you don’t need a TG21 for the sole reason of knowing how many TG23s should be present…

[cygnus_maximus]

@Squirrel

You’ve described the contacts report and aviation criteria report.

Thanks - every day is a school day! Previous roles in this organisation have not required me to use SMS to it’s fullest extent, so any exposure to what it can actually do is good!

@Squirrel

Have you never wondered what the button does?

Err, no

[wdimagineer2b]

As I understand it, AEFs were offered access but they said ‘no thanks’.

[Egg]

None of the flying arms were. The system wasn’t designed with them ‘in scope’. Most don’t even have access as it’s almost useless for them all

[wdimagineer2b]

Perhaps the offer was declined by someone further above them and they never even knew.