Well, the CFMO’s boss apparently had tthe time to run the trial in the decompression chamber, so we know that the tea cakes have been risk assessed! 
2 Likes
This was lost long ago….
Well, 4.5 months post withdrawal we still have no way of getting cadets with listed conditions airborne.
I wonder how long it will take until someone goes to the press to claim discrimination?
Hmmm, I think a discrimination case would be hard to argue as the resource was pulled by the RAF.
I think I remember a recent chat where it was mentioned that RAFAC is still trying to source a viable option. Can’t recall if that was for a full-time placement, or, a pay as you go, to utilise perhaps local UK AMEs.
Yep, that was in a weekly brief but in the meantime how many cadets are we having to turn away from flying ops as we can’t get the medical assurance we’ve been told is essential? I have several I’ve had to write to parents and explain the situation as best I can, and it’s embarrassing.
I know the RAF pulled it, but doing so with no notice (assuming there wasn’t any that someone just ignored) and taking this long without any solution has to be unacceptable. I know @Cab still comes on here from time to time, even if he doesn’t post, but does he realise the impact this is having on us up and down the country?
4 Likes
The last update on VoP suggested a full time replacement
I do wonder how many cadets are affected by this.
We have a fairly large sqn & for at least 40 cadets eligible to fly (& I have pre-completed Av Med forms for most of them), we only have 2-3** that required F6424 action. I did stress to cadets during the pre-warning period before the CFMO support was withdrawn that if they needed one, crack on, but no takers. Since then, we have had a recent intake, but they won’t be flying for a while, even when they become enrolled / eligible.
** one of those was the GP playing silly b*ggers (IMHO) & not wanting to sign off what was a relatively simple medical condition. CFMO was more than happy to take ownership.
Well, when you reduce the chance to fly for everyone by not giving us much, the problem does tend to go away. I suppose that isn’t discrimination as it’s against everyone equally 
However, this is likely to be a significant issue across the country. Of my most recent intake of 10, at least 4 if not 5 will need this. That doesn’t include any from previous intakes either, or anyone who gets diagnosed with something after they join (i.e. we don’t know about it from the outset).
Arggghhh!! 
The IBN now says that (bascially due to lack of CFMO status), the new version of the Av Med Form (v5) now makes all previous versions defunct!!!
Surely, we need some common sense here for those with in-date F6424s (or who don’t NEED one) & say v4 of the AV Med Form?
1 Like
Nope, it’s yet another stupid ill thought out problem caused by people who don’t understand the impact of their decision.
Had to throw them all out, and now get them all printed and signed again. What a waste of time, paper, ink and morale.
1 Like
Not correct.
Current v4 are still valid for 12 months from the date of signing if done so before 14/10/25 and any associated 6424s are still valid for 24 months. We (10) are allowing 7 days for units to filter the new forms through so we will still accept v4s until then after which point units must use v5.
Cadets should use a v5 if their v4 has expired. If they need a new 6424, under the instructions of the IBN, in theory shouldn’t be selected to fly as the lack of CFMO support does not allow the 6424 to be completed.
I am at the AEF Commanders conference this week so will raise concerns.
The IBN states that all previous versions of the AvMed1 are now obsolete….Not sure that’s open to interpretation?
1 Like
I’ll get clarification from the author this week but from his email to us it means that any unused versions are obsolete.
What if a cadet has an in-date F6424 but their AvMed1 v5 says ‘do not fly’ rather than ‘initiate 6424 process’ for the condition their 6425 relates to?
It’s a question I’ll ask but my understanding is if they have a 6424 that’s less than 12 months old then their v4 will still be valid (v4 valid for 12 months, 6424 for 2 years unless condition changes)
The problem that some may have is that on several occasions AvMed forms have been left behind after flying and the cadets have gone home. We can’t keep them due to GDPR so they are shredded. The unfortunate thing is that parents, and potentially GPs, have to complete a new set of forms.
1 Like
I not it’s not the same, but I’ve known RCOs not to accept a WHT because it’s 5 months old, despite what the rules state!!
This will be open to interpretation!!
I’m with @pEp here, only V5 is now valid regardless of previous life on a completed form.
That’s how the IBN reads.
Not that V4s signed prior to IBN issue date remain valid but subsequently V5 to be used.
1 Like
This is the worst thing about these episodes.
Sqn Cdrs being expected to carry the can for decisions at 1 or 2* level.
5 Likes
Can you not just add the tagline
“The RAFAC again has messed up on an aviation related subject”
To all your outgoing emails, like in the signature block.
Just seems like a standard disclaimer that should be sent out with all emails.
3 Likes