I work in a school.
I am never shocked by the level of tech illiteracy among some staff in certain departments of the school. These are highly intelligent people, but they have no understanding in how tech works. Apple users compared to Windows users.
1 Like
I presume, with CFMO F6424 sign-off not currently available, this guidance is also not available.
If you’ve never stood in a Coroner’s court, ‘easy’ it isn’t, damn scary is the reality.
no i did not.
on the basis that the only difference* is a question about Cerebral Palsy your honour, i took the executive decision that the Cadet clearly does not have Cerebral Palsy.
I confirmed this with the escorting CFAV, who has access to previous medical declarations through TG21s and so felt there was no need to excalate further.
also your honour, what purpose am i standing before you with?
No need to suggest it. as indicated, it was a quick skim read* between the two different versions, if i wanted to spend more time I am sure i could have found more differences, and indeed the IBN you reference. I am not “shooting from the hip” but trying to discuss on an internet forum to the level of interest and detail that interest me. sure if i looked deeper i would have found the use of an epipen on the updated form. but i doubt my approach would be different.
if you study the requirement on the form against ticking yes to use of an epipen, the Cadet can still fly.
so even if missed of the out of date form, questioning the Cadet, CFAV and Parent will confirm if one is needed and they can carry it in the cockpit on the condition they have it with them.
it is not difficult to confirm, if necessary speaking to the parent on the phone should you so desired to confirm the Cadet has no use for an epipen.
i understand that.
But understand for whose benefit is the form for?
I don’t see any benefit for the Cadet.
Any CFAV can conduct a dynamic RA. the event organiser does not need to be RA trained, but it is up to them to make the call should the unexpected happen.
I have never suggested changing them…
I have never denied this…
what is the risk of Cerebral Palsy being ticked on an AV Med Form?
well, a F6424 is required.
But it is clear if a Cadet has Cerebral Palsy, and if it isn’t the Cadets can confirm it, the CFAV can confirm it. the parent can confirm it via phone call.
i not suggesting due process should be fragrantly ignored. nor suggesting that the correct forms don’t matter, of course Cadets and CFAV shoudl be conducting proper checks prior to leaving for AEF to avoid errors.
But i am suggesting i have no sympathy for you coming here to complain about “too much time of your flying day” being taken up by admin which could easily avoided if you applied a “smarter not harder” approach - “Flexibility is the key to air power” was once a common mantra.
*not this is a 2 minute skim of the differences between the two form.
2 Likes
Very true - the tech aspects should be aimed at the lowest level of tech experience. Sometimes, the different requirements for different activities (or as specified by the SME contrary to the actual stated requirements) don’t help matters, TG21, yes or no, for example. So many areas where there is a more complex route to action / find something - or have to enter a log of an event AND also add the qualification gained (rather than this being an automatic transfer of data).
Hmmm, didn’t cadets have a paper book called something that had (more or less) everything listed in it? 
1 Like
A crucial difference in recent Av Med 1s (I think this came in in v3) is the requirement for the accompanying staff to sign to say they have no reason to doubt the validity of the statements made by parents/guardians.
Like so many things in aviation, this came as a result of a serious incident where a condition had not been declared and should have been.
Nothing requiring such a signature by staff on the AvMED Form 1 (or anywhere else that I’m aware of).
Within the form itself (for RAFAC ATC Squadron OC / CCF RAF Section Commanders):
- Check that all questions have been answered and that the form has been signed
The sqn / CCF section signature block says:
I confirm that I have seen and scrutinised the above AvMED 1 and, can further confirm that, where required, the F6424 process has been completed and that the F6424 is attached.
Scrutinise does not imply a legal responsibility.
Regardless, unless a medical condition has been declared / recorded when the cadet joins (or circumstances dictate an amendment), staff have no way of establishing if the parents have completed the form (or 3822A) honestly. We are not medically qualified, so suspecting that little Johnny or Josephine have a neuro-diverse issue, whatever, is out of our hands.
The 2FTS Form 2 (for OC / staff countersignature) states:
Are medically fit in accordance with ACTO 31 Annex A.
The Escorting Officer is to declare:
I declare that I have read ACTO 31 and I understand and accept that, except for when they are under the direct control of AEF staff, I remain solely responsible for the welfare and discipline of cadets attending the AEF.
ACTO31 (Annex A) refers back to the same requirements as per the AvMED Form 1:
g. Scrutiny and Signature by ATC Sqn Cdr/CCF Sec Cdr.
Sqn/Sec Cdrs are to sign the form confirming that they have scrutinised the detail.
1 Like
So, can someone please clarify regarding the AvMed 1 Form…
One person said that any AvMed 1 Version 2 that was signed before Feb 2025 was still valid for a year from the signature. However, another person said that where the medical conditions change on the form during the validity period, a new AvMed 1 must be submitted - so does the addition of the Cerebal Paulsey and EpiPen questions mean that everyone will need a Version 3 from now on or will the older Version 2’s still be valid if signed before Feb?
V3 - valid a year from signature
Anything else - no longer valid
That’s not based on any policy I can find but what the VGS/AEFs are asking for.
V2 got an IBN (IBN 027-2024) saying it was valid for 12 months.
V3 didn’t seem to get any sort of announcement that I can find.
None that I could find either. I fed this back to our Wg Av O.
No announcement should be no change to circumstances.
@Scrounger I think we’ve found (at least part of) the problem.
No one bothered to tell us (formally, at least) about v3.
Epi-pens / flying solo = not relevant to 99% of cadet flying.
CFAVs do not expect to have to trawl through IBNs to find any / all relevant to circumstances.
EDIT - just noticed!
Any AvMed 1 forms (V2) held may remain current until their expiry date.
Not how things were handled.
So, after having read this (I appear to have missed it at the time), it does state that any V2 remains current until it’s expiry date - so any that were signed before 3 Feb 25 can stay until they expire, but any new ones from 3 Feb onwards have to be V3.
Interestingly, I took cadets flying in March with V2’s signed after 3 Feb and nothing was mentioned by the AEF and they did fly!
2 Likes
Not sure what flying solo has to do with the Av Med 1 anyway. All cadets flying solo require F6424 or CAA Class 2 or 1.
2 Likes
it was included in the ACTO031 Annex A update (Version 24, dated Jan 25) (my bold)
Note on allergies added to Annex A Para 2 AvMed 1 validity period changed to 12 months
