RAF CAM
RAF CAM - think I know a senior doc there, will enquire…
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=20413]
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.[/quote]
[Off topic] Probably depends what time on Friday you had the anaesthetic. 
Probably best not to fly though.
Is said new documentation electronic (mentions of drop down boxes and excel) rather than paper based? I’m intrigued to know.
[quote=“chaz” post=20430][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=20413]
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.[/quote]
[Off topic] Probably depends what time on Friday you had the anaesthetic. Probably best not to fly though.
Is said new documentation electronic (mentions of drop down boxes and excel) rather than paper based? I’m intrigued to know.[/quote]
How many people go to a dentist, have treatment and then drive? Judging by this you shouldn’t, if effectively being a passenger in an aircraft is a no no.
Yes the form is only electronic. The way it is presented it seems that the cadet completes and signs and then a parental counter signature if they are under 16. I would say that two-thirds to three-quarters of the questions are largely irrelevant. The form only has a month’s shelf life, so if you go flying/gliding and then similar 5 weeks later, in theory at least, given that it is unlikely any underlying conditions which many of the questions allude to are unlikely to come to light, you need another one which will repeat the old one. Where there are underlying conditions or even conditions presenting the vast majority of parents will tell you and you will invariably see lack of attendance due to these.
There are questions relating to acute conditions, limited mobility and other conditions that you would know about, because cadets and parents tell you, because they don’t want to come to harm or see their children come to harm.
The forms honestly dont seem that bad.
Ok, so they may take longer, and we’ve enough to do.
Yes, parents are going to tell fibs to ensure that little johnny flies, esp if on a sqn that doesn’t get a lot of opportunities, whether by accident or design. We as Sqn staff will use common sense surely? Just as we have done before this new form. How many of these questions are going to come up on a regular basis? Not often I would wager, so sqn staff will use common sense and initiative. If we have a cadet with ADHD, or ODD (that is a real one), that wants to fly, we will speak to whomever we need to, parents, OC AEF, teacher?
Is anyone actually suggesting that they wont be taking cadets flying because of a longer form? If so, I hear the ACF & SCC are recruiting.
Just my opinion.
Yes, if only because we won’t be able to take up on short-notice opportunities such as cancellations by other units, or we won’t be able to fill spaces in our own allocations that become free due to last minute drop-outs. Even reserves can let us down.
The idea of “bums on seats” is dead.
On the up side, the idea of the AEF telling us on a Friday of slots on Saturday should also be dead - they need to be giving us almost 2 full months of notice if I am to have any hope of filling 4 spaces!
[quote=“incubus” post=20440]
they need to be giving us almost 2 full months of notice if I am to have any hope of filling 4 spaces![/quote]
I genuinely love an optimist! 
OK, fair point one the short notice, but not generally surely?
I struggle to fill flying slots.
Now I’ll need to advertise it for a couple of weeks to try to get interest, then freeze the list and make sure I have these new forms (and some sort of covering letter I guess) out to selected and reserve cadets somehow, then leave about 2 weeks for them to complete those and return them signed, then have another week’s buffer before the allocation as contingency.
Then of course, the allocation will be cancelled due to weather / tech issues / new regulations / incompetence and we’ve all wasted everybody’s time again
^^^ Wot he said.
Seeing this I wonder what happened to the Admin Reduction Burden Team? B)
They were disbanded as they considered there wasn’t any admin to reduce.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=20431]
How many people go to a dentist, have treatment and then drive? Judging by this you shouldn’t, if effectively being a passenger in an aircraft is a no no.[/quote]
In a 3FTS aircraft you shouldn’t. Yes it’s pax flying but we know from experience what you might be required to be able to do - hence I’d suggest the limits applying to the captain ought to apply to the passenger too (including alcohol for 18+ cadets)
The bit I’ve highlighted - good (to an extent - one day/48hrs only would be more watertight). That’s the point of the form - it should be a there and now snapshot of a cadets fitness for the activity at that particular point in time, and probably disposed of once the activity is complete.
Yes, in 5 weeks time it might repeat the old one, but it might not.
Seems to me it may be a bit in depth - maybe it ought to focus on the day to day issues as to your fitness; have you got/had a recent cold, been sick etc. Not counting limbs and discovering underlying conditions.
i’ve nothing much to add to the repeated comments on the accuracy of the TG forms (we’ve had a known case where it was a blatant lie given Cadet illness we’d experienced first hand) and agree a new form isnt going to change a parents honesty but i will share the following seen posted on FB by a friend in N Ireland who had a mini-rant indicating it is now very much the end of flying for him
the easy solution which was mentioned in reply was to move to Tutors to NI (Aldergrove still open?) every so often to fly the NI Cadets but who can see that happening?!
Aldergrove - not until the new EFT aircraft arrives and the future of the Tutor (and the UAS system) is decided (and contracts renegotiated and renewed).
I’ve heard it mentioned though.
Typical RAF over reaction to an isolated incident, create loads of admin and process blah. Not that many years ago we used to engage with cadets and visiting staff and used to exercise common sense and judgement to screen unsuitable flyers. Now the average VGS staff member is so drowning in paperwork on a flying day they never have time to engage with the cadets.
Was it an isolated incident?
Yep, and that’s was un-auditable (very important these days) system which sadly (and I’ve seen the proof), does not work.
Chaz - I get your points totally. However the ‘audit trail’ is another modern disease. It has no safety effect at all. The number of times I’ve asked why we are doing various paperwork processes to be told ‘it’s for the audit trail’ - who audits it then? Er no one, but if there’s an incident they look at it. Well it’s too late to have had any effect then isn’t it! Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just I have a serious worry that by running our lives by processes, orders and paperwork we are robbing our people of the basic skills of situational awareness, judgement and leadership. Drown people in process and they stop thinking.
[quote=“spud163” post=20374]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?[/quote]
Suggest you read up on the concept of Just Culture, which is now permeating through all aspects of military aviation. The entire approach has been forced to change as the military was found to be decades behind best practice and the days of “March the guilty barsteward in.” are gone.
http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/regulation/manualofairsafety.pdf
I’ve spoken to a couple of people who are responsible for flying/gliding at Wing level and they have had no formal guidance on how this form has to be used.
One of them said it is madness that anyone without formal medical training has to sign it off, it’s the eqivalent of showing a medical form to the booking clerk at an airport and them saying OK. As said trying to get an appt at the Dr’s for anything non critical in the sort of timeframe mentioned here is almost impossible.
I don’t know of any parent that will deliberately and knowingly put their children in harm’s way. If they do unknowingly hardly a crime, we all do things unknowingly. Yes you get the stories in the news, but they don’t generally fit the profile of people who would encourage joining an organisation like this. In my not inconsiderable experience they come and ask about things.
I don’t understand why people need clearance outside the airline’s normal medical requirements. If they are OK to fly with the majority of carriers, then needing another form from the ATC is pointless overkill. Sounds like some under-employed adminner who’s filed/painted their nails and drunk their umpteenth cuppa, needing to tick a box.
I would suggest feeding back to your Wing FlyGlo the problems this form is going to cause for us for onward transmission to HQAC.