The issue that someone mentioned about phone signal is why I think our VGS makes us do it.
Isn’t MyRAFAC designed to work without a signal?
2 Likes
It may work without signal but it doesn’t work without a smart phone and not all cadets have one. Plus there is growing pressure to limit younger teenagers from owning smart phones.
3 Likes
I hear you, but that means the non-smartphone alternative should be by exception: and it shouldn’t be hard copy.
There should be a digital solution that doesn’t rely on every individual cadet having a charged smartphone with a signal.
I can see the “old argument” of if you have a paper copy, they can have the details easily to hand etc etc. Personally it opens you up to loss of data very easily on the one hand, two as you say the sustainability of it doesn’t make any sense, as we don’t need “wet signatures” anymore
1 Like
There is.
The Aviation Criteria Report from SMS shows parental consent for flying.
1 Like
We’ve had problems with parents activating screen time locks on the cadets’ devices and then they can’t use MyRAFAC or even message home (they don’t seem to know how to use the phone function, it’s all WhatsApp or iMessage to communicate what parents).
So then you call the parents from your own phone and they busy the call as they don’t recognise the number!
I’ll never forget the confusion caused when I called my son’s mobile for the first time. He’d had it for months, but never received a call.
Cough aircraft cough
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what the differences are it’s the fact it’s been superseded. It may be a single word or a whole change of policy requirement, it doesn’t matter. If we are told by HQ 6FTS that there is a new version and we should use that then this is what we should do.
1 Like
I don’t disagree…
but in this case, the only difference i could see was the question
“does the cadet have Cerebral Palsy” - now i am no doctor, but i would take a good stab with one eye closed if a Cadet had Cerebral Palsy or not…
i know there is a process, but you’re complaining at having to do X, Y and Z last minute so somewhere on a document proves what everyone already knows and can see.
my point being, who gained from all that ballache?
the Cadet was worried they’d not fly.
the Parent stressed that had to complete it with no notice.
the CFAV having the manage the situation.
and the AEF seeing a Cadet it fit to fly, saying “no”.
i fail to see the benefit in the given situation.
this isn’t an excuse not to use the right form. but i do question, how important is it really when all the information requires is clearly already available. it proved nothing as was a tick box for the sake of it.
while is it clear the fault was with the Cadet and the Squadron for incorrect form, rather than see what was in front of you with your eyes, you chose to create hassle for the sake of it.
so often CFAVs have to make a on the spot decision and create a dynamic RA - a shame the AEF in this case couldn’t do the same with strict instructions not to do it again.
1 Like
To add to that it’s not helped that Version 3 is titled AvMed1 with Version 3.0 being at the bottom of the page. The top of the page should be titled (AvMed1 V3)
Although again, we direct our cadets to the “landing site” rather than pre-printed forms etc.
Also on this form page 4 is blank which is pretty pointless.
The Word document / PDF forms should be replaced with a Microsoft Form, which must be completed, submitted, and checked, prior to final selection and certainly before travel to the AEF.
Then there would be no need for version numbers; all forms completed after any change to the questions would automatically pick up those changes.
6 Likes
How difficult would it be to write a definite AvMed form that doesn’t need to be amended until;
- A new illness/condition is discovered.
- The type of aircraft used changes.
Its almost as though every 3 months a different person looks at the form and thinks, “I’m sure I could improve this form by adding a previously overlooked condition!”
Standby for version 4 that asks if the cadet is suffering from Ebola!
3 Likes
To be fair to them, one of the recent updates was to increase how long it’s valid for, which is a good thing.
1 Like
I’d suggest you read the IBNs issued when a new version is released as it states the changes. v3 now includes the use of an EpiPen. You need to understand that Av Med forms are written by HQ RAFAC in conjunction with R&S DOM at Cranwell with guidance from the CFMO and President of the Medical Board.
2 bold statements. What you need to think about is if anything were to happen and you’re stood in front of the man with the curly wig and he asks you ‘did you use the correct med form and if not why not?’ Could you justify your decision to let the cadet fly? You’re not a Doctor nor their parent and not in a position to make that decision.
That’s more than likely because some CFAVs are qualified to do RAs and can write them in a few minutes. Unless you’re a GP/Consultant or the cadet’s parent, you’re not in a position to change Av Med forms and neither are we.
We have a duty of care and parents trust us to ensure their child is looked after.
1 Like
This is highlighted in ACTO31.
Quote: ‘Validity: The Av Med 1 is valid for 12 months from date of signature. Except that, where medical conditions change during the validity period, a new AvMed 1 must be submitted.’ End Quote.
I think the easiest way to prevent the wrong forms being used is to delete the previous version from BADER. This would most probably fall to the document writer but, as we know, Share Point is full of out of date documents. MODnet Share Point sites are exactly the same.
A good example of something AI could help with
2 Likes
Yes. Easy.
Having reviewed the two form versions, I noted that the difference was the addition of the question “does the cadet have cerebral palsy?”.
I discussed this with cadet and escorting staff, and we were satisfied that the cadet did not have cerebral palsy.
Narrator: the cadet did not have cerebral palsy.
Perhaps some of our legal members can confirm, but I highly doubt a court would care at all about the version of the form unless the difference had any impact on the case.
It is.
But because we insist on a wet signed copy, it is a requirement for it to be printed. Thus, squadrons pre-print a few copies for easy access.
Or someone opens the version that had previously been downloaded onto “the squadron computer”. Don’t underestimate the levels of tech illiteracy across the organisation - many staff can’t cope with signing in to SharePoint and finding the official version of the form.
2 Likes