This is where it all fell down before if memory serves; three staff on sqn keen to deliver, but no resources, or how to etc when we asked…
Even on the RA course we were told we would be emailed resources etc and nothing came, and radio silence when we chased up.
Will try again.
I tried the levity approach with the smile emoji, and I thought that would come across in my post… Maybe not.
Thank You. I’ll take that description… I think! 
Thank You for the observations, especially regarding H&S being ever present in many activities.
I would personally be mortified if I missed an email such as that in SW Region, but we are only Human.
Requests for ELA courses do bypass Wing HQ and should come direct to the RSA (You can of course copy them in so they know what you’re doing). Wings don’t hold the ELA workbooks, and don’t have access to the student register.
A problem I encountered about 3 years ago was that a big parcel arrived at work with about 40 completed ELA workbooks. I knew nothing of the course they had been running, and the workbooks were an estimated 7 or 8 years old.
Similar to the current book, but slightly different. They had been in a bottom drawer, were then photocopied, and a course run based on that.
That could have potentially meant that 40 Cadets had (really) wasted their time completing an old workbook. RSAs ask you to let us know when you’re delivering the course so we can make sure you’re using the correct workbooks, and to give you any support you might need or request.
@pEp /@Baldrick can we do a thread split for the ELA / H&S Query’s etc that @RickWhitehead is able to help us with 
Ermmmm… no. If we needed H&S training prior to attending a range session, then it would form part of the eligibility criteria. It doesn’t, so we don’t. Let’s not confuse specific task training with general, non specific H&S awareness training.
That’s not to say that the points you made are not safety critical - of course they are. But the control measures needed are put into place by the Safe System of Training, the RCO and their range staff. The cadets are briefed on all safety related points before training takes place - absolutely no prior H&S training is required.
I get your point about self policing and NCOs, and agree to a point. That said, we should have already have Risk Assessed our units and our activities, and put into place control methods (which may or may not include briefings and or education). The whole point of what we do is to provide a safe, risk free enviroment (as far as is reasonably practicable). If you’re relying on self policing to control hazards, then I would suggest you’re flirting with trouble.
Just because the SST and “specific task training” isn’t called H&S training, doesn’t mean it isn’t H&S training. It’s still hazard, risk, and control.
An area or task specific brief is a type of training - you’re giving the required knowledge in order for people to remain safe.
What you seem to mean is you don’t need cadets to have completed the ELA to [shoot on the range] and that’s not what is being suggested. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. I really don’t understand your point, because you implied that you concede that H&S training is “desirable” (or at least, not not desirable) and potentially useful.
Just because the booklet content isn’t specific to us? There’s nothing to stop you using your expertise to add relevant knowledge, but let’s not forget the “civilian life” part of our aims.
Straw man.
Can also stem from the mind numbing nonsense from HQAC…
We run ELA twice a year. 1 evening each time.
Plenty of time to complete the award in a night.
Cadets dont seem to mind it and we use the powerpoint with various safety ‘props’ and hands on stuff.
Gets them a basic certificate and some sense of H&S.
What would be nice is if some of these ‘extra’ or ‘bolt on’ things we have now such as…
ELA
Space award
Cyber
iDEA award etc
Could be recognised in an overall BTEC or ‘more recognised qualification’. Not to insult the individual elements, but if each bolt on topic was assigned a certain number of credits and when a cadet completed them all they get a BTEC et.al it would be a real CV boost.
Whilst I support and run all these things on Sqn. I do sometimes think there needs to be a better end reason for the cadets putting the work in.
I agree with the credit and recognition thing
It’s nothing too cryptic. Risk assessment was, at that time, included as part of the BASIC course for all staff in the wing. The content was identical to that which I received some years later on the Region led RA course.
I would also say that I think both courses fell short of the mark, which is something I believe that the RAFAC approach to RA has always done. I’ve done that opinion to death in other topics in the past, but I’d happily repeat it for the sake of discussion if desired…
Whilst I appreciate that I would still say that it’s aimed too low. Our youngest cadets are 12 and I think that course content would bore my 8 year old niece in its simplicity.
I wouldn’t say that I “refuse” to run the course… If sufficient cadets showed an interest in doing it then I’d run it for them - the same as we do for any other activity that they’re keen on and we have the capacity to provide. But I certainly wouldn’t subject them to it arbitrarily.
They get regular H&S training from me which I consider to be sensible as well as necessary, but I consider it a supporting action, rather than a primary element of our training. No single cadet in my experience has ever requested to do “more H&S training”.
My approach has apparently not been a bar to our achievement of gold stars.
Thanks for that. It’s good to know!
Sadly it appears that the message has not always been correctly understood or applied by some of your colleagues in the past (though, that’s not an uncommon situation in any area within the RAFAC).
In general terms I think that difficulty that the RAFAC now faces with H&S is that Donald did an unknown amount of damage during his time. Some of the utter nonsense he sent out really turned people off. I’d long said that with the man spouting so much toss to which people become deaf, there’s a danger of missing something genuinely important in amongst his dross.
Now that he’s gone we’re hopefully moving into a more sensible era. But I think it’s going to take a concerted effort to re-engage those who’ve written off “the RAFAC voice” on H&S.
Yes these stopped circa 2010 with a new one day course instead of the previous 2
I did my BASIC course as a new CI back in 2001 I think. In the years which have followed the inadequate RAFAC RA process has apparently not changed - though the form itself has gone through a dozen minor changes in layout and formatting - any one of which would have been an ideal opportunity to fix things.
No, What I mean is that I don’t need cadets to think about H&S issues. They don’t need prior H&S awareness training. They just need to do exactly what they’re told, when I tell them.
If I tell them to use the footpath on the 25M range, I don’t care if they realise that rabbits occasionally burrow into the grass, and there is a risk of turning an ankle, or if they think it’s because the range warden doesn’t want his grass to be worn out. They just need to walk down the path.
All of the procedures outlined in the PAMs, in my RAM, and my conducting notes have some underlying logic, be that H&S, or operational. The cadets don’t need to know, understand, or think about those reasons - they just need to follow the procedures and instructions.
The same can be said for other activities. I don’t care if cadets understand why they need to be escorted around the pan when walking to their aircraft. I just need them to comply with the instructions.
Now, I get that if there is a basic understanding of why we do stuff like that, then the cadet is more likely to comply. Which is why I would personally like to see the ELA or similar type of training that is geared up towards what we do. Where the cadets can discuss safety around aircraft, weapons, ammunition, ranges - you, the kind of activities that they can expect to get involved in.
Generally I’d agree, though I would say that there are practical aspects where it does benefit a cadet to know why they’re doing something in a particular way.
For example, if they’re lugging about some 12x12’s I want them to understand proper lifting techniques.
They’re far less likely to injure themselves if they understand vs just doing as told and me saying “bend your knees”.
Or “When you pick this up, hold it ‘this way’… Because there’s a risk that your fingers might get trapped in [here] if you don’t…” is better than simply “hold it like this, because I say so”.
But I consider that to be part of the activity briefing rather than requiring (and relying on) some previous H&S theory training.
Our RA system really winds me up, I really do feel it’s not fit for purpose as it doesn’t really capture the the threat and harm part of the process. Assessing and attempting to lower risks is all well and good but some risks are just part of the activity and by not measuring threat and harm we end up with impulsive bans on activities due to perceived risks.
Do you have some examples you could share to help us understand?
The other element I feel is missing is likelihood. Unfortunately, as soon as likelihood is introduced, it generally introduces a scaling/scoring system… And suddenly people have boundaries to aim for and ALARP becomes anything under a nominal figure.
Not that doesn’t have a classification rating I’m afraid.
Likelyhood is Threat effectively in the system we use at work. It does as you would guess use a numbered system with the combined number being used to decide if it’s Red Amber or Green and then you apply your additional controls (or contingencies) and rescore and this gives you your final rating.
Yes ALARP will then end up becoming a figure but that’s where you use controls and additional controls to show that you have lowered the risk as far as possible. (Falling off a SUP, initially the threat and risk are high, you could drown, but controls, you have to pass a swim test and wear a buoyancy aid, the threat of falling off is still high (well it is when I’m on a SUP), but the potential harm from the risk is now low.
I have in my old Wing more than once been told “you should never have anything in your additional controls as if you’ve identified it it should be in the existing controls box” which is rubbish.
The problem with our process as I see it is:
There’s not enough emphasis on a Hazard survey. Yes, it is in ACP 5 but how many people ever bother to read ACP 5? 10% of CFAV? I’ve seen too many RAs which include nonsense “risks” which should never have made it past a hazard survey and a bit of thought.
Equally I wonder how many hazards are missed because people dive straight into the RA and get carried away without taking this basic first step. You spend half an hour scribbling away on the things as they spring to mind and suddenly it feels like you’re done.
It’s the old “can’t see the wood for the trees” problem.
Just identify the hazards first. Don’t think about them, just get them down and keep looking. Only once you’ve considered that should you go on to decide which are important enough to go into an RA.
Virtually everyone approaches the RA process as a reaction. “I want to run this activity but I’ve got to do an RA”. So everything they do comes from the mindset of ‘justifying’ the activity and not from managing the risk. From that place it’s easy to overlook something because the whole time you’re just trying to get a “yes”. Which brings me on to…
“Is the risk acceptable? Yes/No” This is my biggest gripe with our system.
That’s not an appropriate way to ASSESS risk. Not at all! It’s an arbitrary judgement.
Everyone - in their mind at least - has “yes” in that box from the very beginning.
How can anyone make a polar “yes/no” decision on that point without something against which to measure it? And particularly when they’re looking for confirmation bias. Naturally the answer is always yes. Nobody creates an RA to support an event they want to do and comes up with “no”. *(caveat below)
I have seen an RA with something similar to “Cadets will be briefed not to let go of the rope swing.” Risk acceptable? “Yes”.
Wait… What if they do let go? They fall 10 feet to the ground and then what? Have they considered that? No… Because the form didn’t ask them to - it just asked them to say yes or no and their instinct was “sure. They just don’t let go… ‘YES’…”
Solution?
Simple
We ditch our awful form and adopt the standard MOD RA form. Instead of asking “yes/no” it requires the assessor to consider likelihood versus severity and from the matrix one then gets a score which directs the outcome - either “yes, go ahead”, “Hmm… Is there anything else which can further reduce risk?”, or “No” - In which case something needs to change if it’s to go ahead.
I’ve seen soooo many RAs with what I would consider to be the merest of controls and some obvious hazards missed with ‘yes’ right down the line.
Then, we ensure that people are not just taught how to fill in the form, but how to consider the outcomes, because whilst that has always been the official policy, it clearly hasn’t made it through to the real world.
I have tried to raise this with two previous RSA… Every time I was met with either confusion, misunderstanding, or patronising replies which wander off on some unrelated point. It doesn’t fill me with confidence - especially when the quickest and simplest solution is already right there.
*Caveat - the other thing I see a lot which drives me insane is people who create an RA from scratch and leave half a solution, with a “no” in the ‘acceptable?’ box, only to then add further additional controls to get a yes… JUST PUT ALL THE CONTROLS IN PLACE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE!!