That’s all good and well.
But he should be putting himself out there.
Openly engaging with volunteers.
Feeding back directly to the Cmdt.
It’s not rocket science.
Else what was the point of their appointment?
you mean like this?
more squadron visits maybe needed maybe extend him an invite, whats the worst he could say?
Edit to make it more on topic, maybe someone could invite him to their trial of the new FSMS?
Not exactly…
Visiting events and tweeting is not the same as advertising an inbox where we can proactively send suggestions and items for attention of the cmdt.
If we want another ambassador even ‘if one of us’ then I have completly mis understood his purpose.
Then again.
I dont believe ToR for this post have been published. Let alone section requirements…
Get him to complete all the paperwork for 1 Sqn. See what he thinks of it then.
Dont just show him the completed paperwork hung up nicely on a wall.
That’s pointless.
To be clear.
I have no issue with people being promoted into new positions.
But there has to be a purpose to their being the ‘senior cfav’.
What is it?
The CoC is the right way to complain about this and it should be those Wings in the trial that are vocal about it first. I have no doubt some Wing Commanders won’t care as it’s not them doing the job but the CFAVs underneath should be badgering their Wing and Region HSE officers to throw this away or make it less duplication.
Andy Pass is there to sit on the management board and offer a volunteer view on decisions they are making, raising things to him directly I doubt will make any more difference than raising it to any other member of the management board directly such as your RC.
I reached this part of the logbook and decided to stop and ask that exact question over Teams.
If he comes back with “just print it off” then I’ll challenge based on the cmdt’s point that we’re supposed to be paperless.
It was also interesting to see that my WExO ‘liked’ my question…
Why have we got to do this anyway?
It’s just more and more admin and mandatory training.
Looking at the senior CFAV’s twits if he’s a proper CFAV and gone from Sqn staff, Sqn Cdr, Wing Staff etc how come he thumb waggles about visiting a VGS like it’s the first time? I would expect as an old CFAV, he should have been to at least 1 VGS a number of times and appreciated what they do.
You and me both, we don’t need another big event visitor, we have too many of them as it stands. He should just be advising HQAC that CFAV need less crap, which if he has been a CFAV for a number of years he would know, without prompting or visits.
WRT to the topic, something like this should have been discussed with HQAC with the senior CFAV fully involved and then decision as to who are the best placed people to do it ie RFCA. If it hasn’t a certain 1* needs to get a snot mail out, appraising people of how it works. If it has and HQAC and senior CFAV have just rolled over for a belly rub and let it get dumped on CFAV, then it further highlights just how useless they are and how they are failing us.
Having reflected on this issue I spent an idle 10 minutes or so on a web search. As a result I may have got the wrong end of the stick or may quote/reference out of date information; others will put me right if I have done. The Laws/Regulations I quote from are applicable to England and Wales only.
It may be the case that organisations and the volunteers that support them could be held liable under different applications of the law (criminal/civil) for the same incident. In the case of the Fire Safety Management System it would appear to me that if the responsible organisation (in our case ultimately the MOD) does not provide and maintain the required Fire Alarm systems etc and as a result injury or death is caused to either volunteers or cadets they would be held criminally liable. If, as volunteers ,we knowingly allow cadet activities to take place within buildings where the Fire Alarm systems etc have not been adequately maintained by the “Responsible Person” under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
we may be liable under civil law. The government have called for evidence for the review of this Order but I have not been able to find any reference to changes.
(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/pdfs/uksi_20051541_en.pdf)
My reading of Section 3b.(2) of that Order makes someone within the paid employee cadre of the MOD/RAF/RAFASC/RFCA the “Responsible Person”.
My main point is that volunteers should only be required to carry out the checks that confirm that a building is a safe training space for cadets and other volunteer staff, not to enable that building to be a safe training space. There appears to be a danger that the duties of the “Responsible Person”, which if not carried out could lead to criminal prosecution, may be in the process of being devolved to those who have no legal responsibility to carry them out.
There are certain exemptions to these regulations for members of the armed forces of the crown to enable them to carry out their duties but, as we aren’t, this will not apply to us!!
I have two further thoughts:
(1) As individuals, please be careful not to take on additional responsibilities without understanding their legal implications.
(2) Would it be so difficult to ensure that when instructions to volunteers for action have legal implications that the responsibilities of the organisation and the individual volunteer are clearly stated?
In theory - this should happen all the time
However, following issues come to mind:
- Harder for RAFAC to throw us under the bus
- Now we have VP we can expect to have to sign electronically for any piece of information they deem to be required - so watch out for lots of catch all info requiring signature
Appreciate volunteer law gets a bit woolly but by definition a volunteer is neither a worker or an employee.
We have the volunteer agreement that everyone has signed that should provide some clarity.
However if there is a specific legal obligation then the responsible person must be a paid staff. Otherwise the task is either non-essential that it doesn’t get done or you are indirectly employing the volunteer.
Since I wouldn’t expect HSE to normally talk to HR has anyone in HQAC run theses tasks & management requirements through personnel & checked it doesn’t alter the nature or requirements (or accidentally employ) of the volunteer.
If the volunteer can’t say no without consequences then it isn’t really volunteering.
Hahahaha
I have an image of a very stressed personal officer going round HQAC yelling at different departments heads as they hadn’t be made aware of proposed policy changes which are now having a disproportionate effect & creating a major headache for personnel as they try to explain the concept that you can’t compel volunteers.
I’d be amazed if they consider volunteers to be among their personnel.
To them, the personnel to look after are the perm staff.
Clicking a button to say i have ‘read’ something
Is not the same as clicking something to accept terms, conditions or responsibilities.
They try and pull that one and a lot will leave.
In which case. Pay me.
And a pension.
Thanks.
Indeed. The overarching impression I get and always have, is that the perms couldnt give the slightest fig as to our genuine welfare of being.
As long as we continue to turn up, open Sqns and behave.
I.e. provide them a reason for employment.
Agreed
But we already have Volunteer Agreement digitally signed on VP - just saying the capability to have us sign other instructions etc is there