CFMO will liaise with RAFAC sponsor to see if previous version(s) of Av Med Form can remain valid until date expiry.
(Only just found this thread)
What about an AvMed form produced in BrailleâŚ.?
To avoid falling foul of anti-discriminatory, one would might also be needed for their service dogâŚ
Without falling into a trap of stereotyping, they wonât need their service dog with them; weâve got form (historically!) for supporting and promoting blind people going flyingâŚ
Not in service aircraft admittedlyâŚ
2 Likes
Capability to see is not a question asked on the formâŚ
Iâm waiting to see if the CFMO inputs have any success on permitting previous versions of the Av Med Form - sadly, considering the time taken so far, the longer the setting concrete surrounds V5, I think we will be stuck with that version only.
Out of interest, apparently there were some 2 -3*** F6424 enquiries a day to the CFMO (make that a 1000 / yr for easy maths). Personally, I wouldnât have previously said that any CFMO replacement would necessarily be a full time person, even if advising on other aviation medical matters. However, if you did âpay per event,â a GPâs surgery often charges about ÂŁ50 a pop (at least) for any private work, so that would be ÂŁ50K to pay out annually. Might as well get the FTP slot to cover all the other aspects.
*** considering there are some 34,400 Air Cadets (according to MoD figures - excluding CCF), thatâs a relatively low number that needed CFMO attention - I think that the national average just for diagnosed youth ADHD for example is about 5%?
2 Likes
Iâd probably say a some of those are ârepeat requestsâ.
Iâve lost count the amount of times units have left Av Med Forms and 6424s when theyâve been to us.
Thatâs why weâre only supposed to bring copies of 6424s.
Why in this digital age are we having to continually faff around with paper forms?
There has to be a way forward to move to e-forms (that are visible / accessible at AEF / VGS)?
4 Likes
Having been going down this path for the past few years with my kids⌠I attended a presentation given by Fintan OâRegan - the UKâs leading ADHD / ND Education Trainer - he helps to train schoolsâŚ
He stated that the Worldâs professional bodies current belief is that the proportion of kids on the spectrum with Neuro Diversity is actually about 1:4 and that adults in the workplace is around 1:5⌠but⌠they also recognise that as the as the science grows and traits become recognised and more people are diagnosed those ratios are far more likely to both grow towards 1:3, if not even higher.
The biggest factor affecting the data, is the stigma attached to a ADHD / Autism / AuDHD label; the acceptance of families and individuals to recognise the issue not only in their kids - but as these are inherited traits, themselves; and most overwhelmingly - the inability to get a diagnosis.
Mike, youâve a long and highly experienced service with cadets - Iâm sure you must recognise the proportion of young people in general is far higher than 4% (and that amongst staff is almost certainly higher than the 1:5).
In many ways, this to me is one of the greatest threats to RAFAC as an organisation. By putting up such staunch, impenetrable barrier to participation in such a core activity as flying is going to turn away the VERY cadets that the RAF would chew a leg off for - the hyper focused; problem solving; STEM oriented; Cyber warriors: Drone pilots; Engineers; AnalystsâŚ. You name it!
1 Like
do remember that the RAFAC is not a recruitment agency for the RAF/MOD more generally.
while the connection is obvious, and would make sense for the RAF/MOD to consider, it is not their place to set the RAFAC experience up to encourage recruitment to the Forces.
while some of the traits you mention might well be useful, its is not the RAFâs aim nor should it be, to capture these people in the Cadet Forces in the hope/expectation they then join up.
1 Like
Iâd like to think so - but despite the âuniversity of lifeâ experience, from the numerous cadets Iâve seen on our sqn, I would say that the 4% figure would match, more or less. This may be because Iâm not seeing them in a home / school situation where there probably is a lot more opportunity to pick up nuances or behavioral aspects. Also, perhaps the cadet experience has different focus / direction / supervision that is beneficial - for example, drill / shooting are very rule bound activities, after the initial learning considerations, there arenât going to be any âsurprises.â
Note - we have cadets from a wide range of family backgrounds / incomes, private school, home schooled & public education.
If anything, for some of the cadets that have had markers on their medical information, I havenât been able to detect any differences in their behaviour / attitude / thought processes compared to the majority of their peers. That said, as Iâve mentioned before, there have been the very few cadets with nothing entered on their notes by parents, but it has been clear that they do have something going on!
Actually, very specifically:
Weâre not a recruiting organisation for the main RAF, so all the skills you learn and experiences you gain will benefit whatever career path you choose.
1 Like
Well as an update, apparently HQAC have permission to recruit an FTRS CFMO to replace the function weâve lost, so this is a great step in the right direction.
3 Likes
As per VoV Chat:
FTRS post as CFMO has been funded, approved and we await its creation on JPA, so that we can start recruitment. We are hoping that JPA action will be done before Christmas and as soon as it is the recruitment process will commence as a priority.
Now, if the TORs state that the experience MUST be RAF AV Med experience at AME level or equivalent, you ainât talking many possible candidates (if any).
Also, I donât think RAFAC are aware of my knowledge of proposed changes:
I believe that within the RAF Av Med world, there is a proposed policy change to accept UK CAA Class 2 medical for VGS instructors & Class 1 for AEF instructors. If that comes into effect, there wonât be any need for a military AME for cadets. As it is, I would suggest that UK CAA AMEs have far more experience of âneuro-diverseâ pilots based on the wide range of licence categories that they deal with; they would have a much better experience level / knowledge base.
That would open up the recruitment to many more potential candidates.
From contact with the CFMO, historically, there were some 2 - 3 F6424 enquiries per day. Thatâs a relatively light workload. OF course, I would hope that the CFMO would be the âguiding lightâ for RAFAC aviation considerations, but there arenât that many in reality.
1 Like
So, as per VoV:
Hi Steve,
As per your recent comments on Teams âValue our Volunteersâ (VoV), you said that you could be emailed to follow up on the topic of Av Med forms.
First off though, I flew with a Flt Lt Steve Stanton at Church Fenton in 1979 when I was undergoing my basic flying trg - one & the same?
CFAVs have had to face many changes to the Av Med Form 1 over the last few yrs - with few, if any explanatory notes - which has made it very difficult to administrate the different versions. In retrospect, permission was granted for previous version(s) to remain valid as long as they were within a specified timeframe of parentsâ signature; it would have saved a huge amount of time & effort if this had been announced at the release of the new version of the form.
Please can there always be a briefing note or similar issued with any changes of version to the AV Med Form 1 (& / or F6424). This note should outline any reasoning behind any change(s) & should confirm any validity of previous versions.
As outlined on VoV, v4 of the Av Med Form 1 allowed cadets with ADHD / ASD to be assessed / signed off by their GP on an F6424. However, v5 of the same form has completely removed this option; there is no logic to this as the GP sign-off on the F6424 did not require further CFMO action. ADHD is not listed as a mandatory discussion item on the F6424, v11.0. What please has altered to warrant this change? If this is meant to be a âcatch allâ based on no CFMO input being currently possible, then I do not see the justification.
For reference:
v4:
v5:
Please can the system revert to GP assessment / sign-off for relevant conditions on the F6424. If this is not feasible, RAFAC should issue a formal answer so that we that can provide precise & accurate information to parents / guardians. I suspect that we are not far off from parents submitting a case for discrimination.
We also need please a revision to the existing IBN to confirm extended sign-off validity of previous F6424s. A comment on VoV does not have a formal basis to extend validity & also does not have any medical oversight.
Whilst I appreciate that the new âCFMOâ will also guide RAFAC AV Med policy, historically, I am led to believe that F6424 enquiries to CFMO are only around 2 - 3 / day - I presume that includes all cadets, CCF / Sea Cadets. Statistically, based on MOD figures of 34,000 cadets (excluding CCF I think), with the NHS stated average ADHD figures of some 5% for âjust diagnosedâ youths, then it would appear that our cadets are under the national average for F6424 enquiries, across all conditions.
We have a couple of our cadets who soloâd on gliders this yr (one aged 14 yrs & a couple of weeks) â as far as I am aware, BGA only require a simple declaration form signed by their GP (similar to F6424 â âfit to driveâ). If what I can see from the CAA medical / licensing website is correct, a Pilot Medical Declaration would be sufficient. In comparison, only to fly as a passenger (not solo) RAFAC seems to have gone to a lot of effort to make both the Av Med Form & F6424 much more restrictive than they need to be.
One element that would make administration easier would be to make the Av Med Form fully electronic so it could be linked via Bader direct to AEF / VGS; I believe that AEFs currently do not have access to Bader, but suitable log-ons / access rights should be comparably simple to implement. The current system is very much lagging behind the digital age.
Looking ahead, if RAFAC wants to be successful in the 30:30 Plan (or whatever it is called today), then many processes need to be streamlined, & of course, more flying slots will need to be provided - which may not be feasible.
To that end, I suggest that the topic of cadets flying in Non-Service aircraft needs to be re-visited. The opportunities for cadets to fly in RAF aircraft are decreasing each yr. We should not be restricting cadets flying with suitable local approved options, especially if BGA or CAA-ATO. I appreciate that this would rest with AOC 22 Gp but looking at the letter of understanding between RAFAC & the Air League, this shows potential pathways to follow.
Hopefully to save your inbox, Iâll copy this to VoV so that other CFAVs can look over my thoughts / requests. Unless any reply from you has any âin confidenceâ areas (I donât envisage that there should be) I would also plan to include your reply on VoV to help spread the word more fully.
Kind regards & best wishes for Christmas & the New Year,
Mike
6 Likes
Some AEF pilots already fly on a Class 1 albeit with an RAF med waiver that doesnât require them to have a full aircrew medical with an RAF AME.
2 Likes
Are these ex-SQPs, but now commercial pilots?
both ex QSP or non-ex mil guys.
I think youâve just pulled the pin on a Jenvey grenade
8 Likes
Hmmm, when / how did that slip into the approval / selection system?
I saw an email go out not that long ago from HCAP looking for AEF pilots
RAF AIR EXPERIENCE FLYING
Number 6 Flying Training School (6FTS) based at RAF Cranwell is responsible for providing Air Experience Flights (AEF) for the RAF Air Cadets. There is currently a shortage of pilots to staff the various AEF flights located around the country and the Commandant of 6 FTS has asked that the Company advertise these vacancies to our members. Anyone who is interested in the possibility of joining an AEF flight is asked to contact Gp Capt XXXX in the first instance.
2 Likes