Definitely. Mention that we are not meeting reasonable standards of inclusion of those with neurodiverse conditions.
2 Likes
I think I need to pull the tigerās tail - my original email (23 Dec 2025) to Sqn Ldr Stanton wasnāt answered, neither was the forwarded follow-up on 09 Feb 2026 (c.c to Dep Cmdt). Can only go one person higher! 
4 Likes
Apologies but heās been a Wing Commander for almost a year.
I have just had an email that Commandant 6FTS has agreed to an extension to those 6424s that already have CFMO endorsement up to 30th June 2026.
I would however, wait until you get notification from your WHQ before getting too excited.
1 Like
Clearly not updated on Bader such that his display name on Teams is Sqn Ldr
1 Like
That is also a topic for onward discussion. With no CFMO, what is the medical source for such an extension? The whole point of a 2 yr validity was (I presume) to ensure that the cadet would be re-checked to ensure that the stated condition(s) hadnāt worsened.
The whole issue was listed as being necessary for āsafety of life careā or similar, so just extending F6424 validity just really fit in with that.
1 Like
Feel free to email the Commandant and tell him youāre not happy and Iām sure heāll oblige you by pulling the extension.
1 Like
Be careful what you wish for.
while i completely agree with the point being made, 30th June is just under 2 months away - how many Cadets are really going to see the benefit in that time (given the limited opportunities there are nowadays)?
like any such ādeadlineā (see EICR as an example) the expiry date is a line in the sand so there is a line in the sand.
A building suddenly doesnāt become immediately unsafe without a EICR in date, likewise a 2 month extension on a 6424 isnāt going to change the world or suddenly see a Cadetās health status āexplodeā (it could be argued it would take two months for a new 6424 to work through the system anyway)
that said - if this is constantly an ever extended situation, where it is always 2-3 months away it does raise questions what is the point of the expiry date if it can so readily be extended time after timeā¦
You canāt have moving goalposts standards (changing F6424 validity - especially not stating the medical specialist guidance / input) but on the other hand, discriminating against cadets who canāt get a F6424 signed off as there is no CFMO (& no alternative solution).
It goes against the supposedly safety reasons for not being able to get F6424 sign-off currently. Thatās double standards.
4 Likes
Yep, & CFMO (according to the details on the SERVE job posting) wonāt be in position until Aug 2026 = will have to extend F6424s again. Iāll ask around.
Itās rather unfair to cavil at the extension: presumably, someone (@cab ?) has agreed to accept this additional risk, which means sticking their neck out to keep cadets in the air. Letās not thank them by taking pot shots.
The situation isnāt good, but the MP level is where to go (i.e. RAFAC need additional resources or they canāt do their job) not complaining about the people trying to make it work.
3 Likes
More likely AVM Sharrocks now?!
1 Like
They canāt have it both ways - signing off any (unknown) risk by extending F6424s but not allowing GPs to sign off the previously permitted conditions of ASD / ADHD. Or, get an alternative sign-off route such as via CAA AME.
Personally , I see this dragging on until at least Dec - & if thereās no recruitment (again) for the āCFMOā position, much longer.
Remember when Dundee went bust & there was no plan to substitute any alternative for ACPS? If hadnāt raised the issue & pushed it as high as I did, lots of cadets would have got nothing. Now, that was a very small pot (50 or so cadets?) - this is RAFAC-wide & must be affecting thousands? Itās discrimination. No solution proposed by RAFAC.
2 Likes
this is the frustration.
those who happen to have a 6424 in place prior are permitted - through an extension, while those who canāt due to a lack of CFMO cannot at all
it is not an easy situation, and no easy solution - other than appointing a CFMO ASAP
100% this - how hard is it to certify (even temporarily) AMEs - even by stimulating they (the cadets) need Class 2 Medicals (most of which were probably Army/RAF/RN doctors) in their previous lives.
Inherently this is a better (and safer option) than a GP who may/may not know anything about aviation.
1 Like
The GP is only asked to confirm that they are medically fit to drive.
There is, but itāll cost them! A GP could bill for the F6424, why not a UK CAA AME?
2 Likes
And the SECOND case of discrimination in recent months whereby thereās a mismatch between the MOD/RAF and a youth club which prides itself on inclusive practice on one hand, yet shuts the door in the faces of some children based on their additional needs.
And yes, I recognise Iām using deliberately emotive language, but itās a really significant issue which has far reaching consequences.
Frustratingly both of these cases are entirely avoidable outside of the MoD bubble - we still have hearing impaired young people at shooting clubs, and Aerobility still seem to have no issue sending young people with Autism flyingā¦
11 Likes
Well they certainly have the aircraft to be able to do itā¦
1 Like
I get that.. but as I say inherently thats better than a GP asking someone (even if we had someone in post)
I wonder why nobody wants a job that could, after all the backside covering by the RAF and RAFAC, see them in court if they get a decision on a cadets mental health wrong?