You do know that excel has a zoom function, right? If the text becomes obscured, click the Wrap Text Button twice.[/quote]
That greyed out “Wrap text” function that can’t be used incase you edit the document? And the zoom function literally does nothing on my PC. Maybe it’s my 2013 version of Excel that’s the problem.[/quote]
I’m using 2013 too and I haven’t had a problem. You have to open up the document for editing to get the drop downs to work.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=20336]As with any document that relies on the honesty & accuracy of parental/guardian completion, it is only a “cover your ass” against liability.
As discussed elsewhere, an annual “do anything” TG21 form, with a “if you don’t declare everything & little Johnny or Josephine dies as a result, a plague of locusts will descend on you…” will cover the liability & minimise the sqn administration.[/quote]
It’s not a CYA exercise. It makes sure, as an organisation, we care carrying out due diligence and helps us make informed decisions. Activity specific TG21/23s and now Av Med Form 1s don’t eliminate risk. The buzz phrase as far as risk is concerned is ALARP: A Low As Reasonably Practicable. That’s what we’re aiming for. A simple form that takes about a minute to complete reduces a vulnerability. That’s all.
But will it. Cadets and parents lie on the current form. Little Johnny and mum arnt going to put anything in the form they think will stop them flying. We had a cadet on camp with a serious heart condition, who told us nothing until he was having complications after sport. A cadet moaned at me for not ordering him a vegetarian packed lunch on the last camp. I produced the TG21 with no mention of dietary requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I may very well not. However when wee Johnny does pass out, hyperventilate, have a panic attack (or try and unstrap etc etc) and the RAF have to go in and investigate (which they did when the events that may have led to this paperwork change occurred), then the cadet and their family have only themselves to blame if something hasn’t been declared, and not the unfortunate provider of the Air Experience.
If this kind of thing had been tightened up previously, then at least a couple of aircrew (and groundcrew) would have avoided fairly unpleasant incidents. It wasn’t, and hence the recommendation was made.
I doubt it very much, for the reasons stated. Recently, for AEF flying, a cadet was seen with a blue inhaler… Was their asthma known, or listed on any documentation? Nope.
ALARP is good. However, the forms are not being completed by Service personnel with a recourse to disciplinary action if medical conditions are knowingly concealed. Parents will conveniently “forget” to add details to whatever form is generated = no change to the current situation.
Mike, if this is your attitude to a minimal amount of admin that has been introduced for a very good reason, then I’m glad I don’t have to work with you.
I don’t think it’s mikes attitude, he is just stating the obvious, cadets lie on their medical forms. No matter what is written on the form, what the questions are etc. in terms of risk assessment and due diligence this will make a difference for covering backsides. For actually finding out the truth of a cadets medical, it will name no difference at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ALARP is a good concept. For starting a course of instruction aimed at providing training up to and including potentially flying solo, a detailed medical assessment (ideally from an actual doctor) is a sensible precaution.
For a 20-30 minute jolly in a light aircraft (AEF) or what is best described as a short, trial lesson (GIC) this system is neither Reasonable nor Practicable. There may well be a genuine need for a more informed declaration prior to flying (to capture the very small number of instances where there may be an issue) but this isn’t fit for purpose.
I doubt it very much, for the reasons stated. Recently, for AEF flying, a cadet was seen with a blue inhaler… Was their asthma known, or listed on any documentation? Nope. [/quote]
You may doubt it, but it’s true. 
ALARP is good. This change may bring no “real” change as such, but after the D-ASOR’s been filed, the investigation completed (as invariably will probably happen for a cadet related “event”).
I think this may not just be in isolation, and a couple of other things may hit the streets sometime soon. After all, we’ve previously had a situation where cadets are in a room with a scary old (probably smelly) Flt Lt with wings, asking them if they’re fit to fly. Apart from the fact they won’t put their hand up in front of their mates, and probably have little knowledge of what “fit to fly” really is. 
I doubt it very much, for the reasons stated. Recently, for AEF flying, a cadet was seen with a blue inhaler… Was their asthma known, or listed on any documentation? Nope. [/quote]
You may doubt it, but it’s true.
ALARP is good. This change may bring no “real” change as such, but after the D-ASOR’s been filed, the investigation completed (as invariably will probably happen for a cadet related “event”) the service can say “we did everything we could to ensure this didn’t happen”.
I think this may not just be in isolation, and a couple of other things may hit the streets sometime soon. After all, we’ve previously had a situation where cadets are in a room with a scary old (probably smelly) Flt Lt with wings, asking them if they’re fit to fly. Apart from the fact they won’t put their hand up in front of their mates, and probably have little knowledge of what “fit to fly” really is.
From what I’ve read here, it does just seem like the RAF\ACO want to cover their arses in the event of anything going wrong. Certainly, some posts allude to that. Before people get on their hind legs with what I’ve just said, I for one truly believe that [I]anyone[/I] setting foot in the airframe [I]should[/I] be entirely fit to fly. However, short of making the kids have full medicals, that isn’t really going to happen no matter what pieces of paper we have to fill in.
No matter what forms we get little Johnny and Jane’s parents to complete, lies will be told by some. Whether it’s a TG21\23 or the new AV1, lies will still be told - for whatever reason - by those who are desperate to get up in the air.
My main worry on this is the fact that the following statements have been put into the ACTO’s:
It is the ATC Sqn/CCF (RAF) Sect Cdr’s responsibility to check that the cadet does not have a history of any condition likely to cause sudden incapacitation in flight or which might be aggravated by the flight environment.
It is required that Sqn/Sect Cdrs review cadet’s aviation medical fitness before they attend an AEF course
I have concerns that if the form is incorrectly filled out and there is an incident that results in a Board of Inquiry how culpable are we as VR(T) based on the above statement being written into an ACTO (With them now being Orders not Instructions)? I am really not comfortable with the way the ACTO’s have been worded and also the bottom of the AV Med Form 1 states in section 9 that the form should be scrutinised by the Sqn CO, so it is then the CO’s judgement if the cadet is fit to fly. A lot of the questions are too ambiguous, such as those entries that say the condition should be stable. How many CO’s are qualified to make that judgement?
The question has to be asked as to what questions are going to be asked of a Sqn CO at a BoI when they have approved the release of a cadet to flying and an incident occurs? The CO can use the best judgement they have but unless they are trained health professionals how can they really sign off against this criteria? Can anyone not trained really be happy in signing this form off in the knowledge that the Cadet may not be fit to fly against the criteria, knowing the possible (all be it small chance) outcomes?
The lack of training and the wooly-ness would immediately render the OC not culpable and the organisation would be slated for failing to ensure it’s staff are trained in accordance with such new rules. Don’t worry about it.
A random man on the Internet has said it is OK, so all is well!
But in the mean time said CO is put through the wringer for who knows how long until it is proven that they are not technically at fault…
As is true with anything you do now as the OC. The only difference is the potential for it to happen. You are far more likely to be caught up in something closer to home than anything related to flying.
I don’t mind admin when it is appropriate, relevant, of value, & easy to complete & not just being issued for the sake of some higher level “closing the loop” for perceived problems.
As House Member at the Officers’ Mess at Bruggen, it took 9 months of adminstration to get the Mess accommodation downgraded from Grade 1 to Grade 5 - I actually proved it was sub-standard but HQRAFG don’t want to play that ball! Six months to sort out £1+m centralised ammo requirements for all Strike Command shooting teams (when we had a substantial Air Force!), 4 months at RAFC Cranwell to coordinate a demand for £1.5m renewal of visual & trg aids. Four months for replacement windows for entire Officers’ Mess, Marham. Four months for installation of 'phone system for all accommodation rooms at Lyneham. All essential administration, all of value & benefit. I won’t bother with commercial airline projects.
Welcome to the real world - as mentioned, there is very little a sqn can do to ensure that forms completed by parents/guardians are accurate - the loop will not be closed in many cases. As outlined earlier, the “responsibility” aspects will be impossible to verify. That negates the whole point of the medical form. Ineffective administration, limited value or benefit.
The plethora of TG forms for a variety of activities can be a nightmare to administer, even if using “easy access” via website, etc; cadets + parents often do not respond to prompting. Make it once a year form(s), with legal disclaimer, & make it simpler for everyone.
[quote=“spud163” post=20374]
It is the ATC Sqn/CCF (RAF) Sect Cdr’s responsibility to check that the cadet does not have a history of any condition likely to cause sudden incapacitation in flight or which might be aggravated by the flight environment.
It is required that Sqn/Sect Cdrs review cadet’s aviation medical fitness before they attend an AEF course[/quote]
With the CCF (first point above), it’s worth noting that the cadet can have minimal involvement with their parents, and in some cases they will have expatriate parents. The schools are the day to day parent, so the onus will be on them to check.
With both above, it’s the Sqn personnel who will notice if someone is a little off colour, hasn’t eaten etc. They are a more robust chain than (previously mentioned) smelly old Flt Lt AEF Flt Cdr standing in the cadet briefing room.
In all cases education can be the way forward (that may be a longer term change - and takes longer than a form!), and maybe something will come along to “assist” in a few months. Hopefully it will be. All in all I think the aim is to make AEF (and gliding) a smoother experience for all. I still remember my first gliding and AEF sessions, and the apprehension caused by not really having the foggiest idea what was going on, other than being carted off at 0600 in a minibus*. Previously it’s often been an introduction to “be there and cope” (excellent experience for the real world later on ), but it shouldn’t be, particularly with flying opportunities being so limited.
*granted with the move from Wyton to Wittering, and cadets in Kent will now need to get up at about 0400! That we cannot change!
Looking at the questions you have to wonder which half wit devised this, asking about pneumothorax, or recent surgey/anaesthetic makes you wonder if they have actually thought about it. It would appear not and just got over excited about the questions.
Would going to the dentist on Friday for a filling constitute surgery and does a bit of local apply to anaesthetic, be ‘recent’ for flying on Saturday? There is nothing to say what ‘recent’ means.
Also the format which seems to be excel only completion is daft. A tick box style would be far more useful as we could give it to cadets.
The info links don’t work, probably because they have password protected the whole sheet, bar drop downs. Blinding :ohmy:
While I accept parents don’t tell you the whole story, some of the things are going to be common knowledge as in my experience parents ask if it will cause any problems. The pregnancy question is brilliant as it might create some interesting situations at home!!!
EDIT - I’ve now had a proper look at it and you can’t read some of the answers if you tick yes. Well done whoever did this!!!
And I thought it was just me!!!