It seem the MOD form but this sounds like a Risk Assessment to me, not whatever it is that we have.
But the opposite is also true, if you are taking a standard or HQAC provided Generic Risk Assessment and adding your own controls then these are additional controls that you have added for the event due to a change in the threat/risk. (A Trekking event in January is going to have additional controls due to the time of year and the likely weather for example).
True, if one is using a GRA and adjusting it âin the fieldâ so to speak.
Though, given that the general push these days is that âGRA=EVILâ (our previous RSA went as far as to tell me that âThere is no such thing as a GRAâ) and we should all be making our own specific RA, then even if we start with an HQAC GRA by the time we finish âlocalising itâ it should effectively be a new and separate RA.
It becomes very debatable at that point, if you provide a template or I have an existing risk assessment that has existing controls then anything I add to it which is specific is an additional control.
True enough.
But when Iâm really talking about is those people who donât complete a new RA properly and instead intentionally split the controls over âexistingâ and âadditionalâ. ITâs almost as though they believe that all the boxes must have something written in them. 
Even when I have modified an RA with additional controls on the day, the next time that RA gets reviewed those controls go into the primary box.
Sadly, Iâm unable to reply to each and every comment as I am on a daily limit, being a newbie on here, so Iâll try and consolidate todays responses into one postâŚalbeit a long post.
Iâm rather unexpectedly putting some extra hours in!
Iâm probably unlikely to change some negative perceptions on here, but Iâll try and clarify to a couple of you who seem to be my hardest audience.
Likelihood and Severity are taught on all Risk Assessment Courses, and should of course be considered when reviewing a RA. It would be difficult to establish and decide upon the relevance of a hazard without doing so.
The chances of getting struck by Lightning, or of a hand gel bottle exploding in a car when itâs sunny are theoretically possibleâŚ. But would be extra ordinary events.
Moist_Van_Lipwig
I repeatâŚ. You do not have to put your cadets through an ELA course. It is merely the easiest way of achieving that little bit extra to push you from a Silver into a Gold. If you want to arrange monthly litter picks around your Community, that would be a good environmental initiative that would count for the same. I would only ask that you consider how youâd evidence that for an assurance visit. Your safety brief to cadets and staff before a Range Session is Health and Safety.
The Risk Assessment should form the basis of your brief before any activity. You donât need to read it out verbatim, but use it as the framework, so that staff and cadets are in no doubt about what to do (or not to do) in the event ofâŚâŚ
The ELA is available to the Scouts, Youth Clubs, and Schools. We donât have the monopoly on the course, and content is dictated to us by the British Safety Council (BSC).
That said, from the weekly discussion we have between the CESO, Safety Centre Team, TSAs and RSAs, I am aware that more engagement will eventually take place between the BSC and ourselves. I already know some good aspirational ideas that will be aimed at the older cadets, and maybe even staff, but that might not happen this year⌠but it will be closer to what youâre hinting at, access to online higher level qualifications up to level 2, with an exam at the end.
Paracetamol
Thanks for running the courses. Please see the response about future plans regarding online H&S courses, possibly at Level 2.
Wdimagineer2b
Youâve got the joint biggest reply paragraphâŚ. But thatâs only because youâre the one of two giving the most push back.
Thank you for clarifying how RA courses were run around 2010.
I again repeat, that the delivery of Cadet ELA courses is left to the individual ELA Mentor to decide. They are given the freedom to go âoff pisteâ to a certain extent.
If you found it to be too simplistic, then put extra activities in as you desire.
All the Safety centre and the RSAs need is a correctly completed Workbook. Iâve had some Sqns getting cadets to fill out the mandatory Monthly check sheet as an additional task. Others get the cadets to draw Posters or create Leaflets.
Be imaginative Wdimagineer2b, this doesnât have to be boring, but if youâre possibly approaching it with a negative attitude, that will be picked up by the cadets, and Iâm sure youâre better and more experienced than that.
What exactly do you think is inadequate about the RA process?
The only recent major changes were the Activity Commander and OCs declaration, which is absolutely to the benefit and advantage of the Sqn OC, removing a lot of the responsibility of the safety of an activity from him or her and placing the responsibility onto the activity commander⌠right where it should be.
Iâm always astonished when Sqn OCs donât buy into thatâŚespecially since the form is coming up to its 4th Birthday⌠the last major change.
The other section is really only to consider environmental impacts of Sqn activities. Something we should have been doing well before we actually did.
The forms are designed to be easy to understand, and amend. They are approved by the Health and Safety Executive. They like them. It meets their requirements.
I again remind you that the Donald Gordon era is over. Time to move on.
You say that only 10% of staff have read ACP5âŚâŚ So, youâve identified a deficiency in what the Staff do.
It is a reference document. Iâd be amazed if anyone could quote it chapter and verse having read it cover to cover⌠I canât!
The Law sits at the top of the Tree. We cannot break that. Beneath it sits JSP375. That will not break the law. It can be MORE stringent than the law, but never less stringent.
It is written to put the Law into Military understanding.
ACP5 sits below that. It cannot contradict the Law or JSP375.
It can (if it chooses) be MORE stringent than the Law and JSP375.
It is written to put the Law and JSP375 into CFAV understanding and speakâŚ. i.e., it contains only the needs to knows and some should knows. It leaves out the ânice to knowsâ, but they can possibly be incorporated if you wish into a future versionâŚ. The end result will be a bigger document, that maybe only 5% of staff will bother reading 
RAs ask binary questions, is it as safe as reasonably practicable? Yes or NoâŚ. not âWell sort of safeâ. It is either safe or it isnât.
It is taught that if youâre going around in circles âtryingâ to get to a Yes, and you canât get it to a point whereby you judge it to be safeâŚ. then stop, because the activity is in all likelihood unsafe.
There is always going to be Risk, the question is; Is it acceptable? We only have to manage it sensibly.
On a typical Wing Rugby or Football event, I anticipate at least 10 injuries to be reported onto 492s in the week following the event. The fact that I donât, but know that some were injured is another topic for another day!
There were discussions about using the MOD 5010 in future. It might happen, it might not. Like any amendment, it wonât be changed just for the sake of changing it.
I agree with you about our RA form. Put all the control Measures in Place in the first instance. You are correct, but itâs no use complaining about it. Youâre in a tiny minority.
daws1159
Youâve got the other biggest reply paragraphâŚ. But thatâs only because youâre the one of two giving the most push back.
The RAFAC RA system really winds you up?
You claim that there are impulsive bans. Please (and bearing in mind that I have a reply limit being a newbie) can you cite some examples of this?
What is taught on RA courses is standard Risk Assessment practice, and has been for at least 8 years:
Describe the task
Identify the Hazards involved in all aspects of the activity
identify the Control Measures in Place already to lower the effect of the hazard
Establish if there is anything else can be incorporated to lessen the hazard.
Is the activity Commander happy with those control measures?
Communicate the hazards to everyone involved
Enjoy the activity
Review the RA
For Batfink In respect of identification of Hazards, Likelihood x Severity has always been taught to establish the level of Risk.
You have a duty under the Safe System of Training to get your Risks reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP)âŚ. and if you donât, youâre in breach of the Safe System of TrainingâŚ.
In regards to the Safe System of Training, Staff can whine and moan about it all they like⌠it isnât going away and (thankfully) it isnât going to change anytime soon, because it works, and it applies to everyone. Regulars, Reservists, MOD Civil Servants, Cadets and Staff.
We use the hierarchy of Control Measures at all times.
From best to worst:
Eliminate the hazard (The most effective)
Substitute the hazard for something safer
Engineer Controls
Use Administration to advise of Hazards
Use Personal Protective Equipment (The least Effective)
If youâre NOT doing this already, then you need to start immediately and record that you are doing so.
When you take a generic Risk Assessment Form and add your own hazards and Control Measures⌠Congratulations. Youâve created your own âSpecificâ Risk Assessment. You have utilised a generic RA to your advantage. Youâve done exactly what RSAs encourage you to do.
A Trekking RAâŚ. In my opinion⌠Why not include NFCIs and Hypothermia Risks, AND Heat exhaustion Risks in to one RA regardless of the time of year?
Itâs still a potential hazard and will save you paperwork. You then only need one RA.
Thanks again for allowing me to clarify some aspects of H&S.
I feel a bit like a punchbag, but I sort of anticipated that.
Thank you for the candid and in depth responses. But with the greatest of respect my point regarding RA process appears to have been missed.
You state that likelihood and severity are taught on all RA courses⌠Iâm sorry, but my experience has shown that, here at least, it has not been properly taught. Iâve sat through the course so I know first hand; and I see the regularity with which people fail to grasp it in practice.
Now, Iâm not in your Region so Iâm not aiming any of this at you. But these problems do exist and âthe Corpsâ needs to address them.
Without the key understanding in place of likelihood versus severity one cannot ask a non-expert to make a âyes/noâ judgement.
They donât know whether itâs safe or not, but their whole purpose for creating the RA is to allow them to run their event, so they invariably answer âyesâ whether the risk is actually acceptable or not.
Give us the 1050 - where the matrix is included on the back of the form - and get CFAVs to actually consider the risk. Make them enter the risk rating instead of âyes/noâ and theyâll better understand the concept and will more routinely consider the risk dynamically as well.
Please donât think of this as me âpushing backâ⌠Think of it as me highlighting the fact that the policy and party-line which you are repeating here is not working down at the coalface, in the hope of improving the situation.
Thatâs how I intend it.
And with regards to the Donald situation⌠The Corps needs to recognise how much negativity he brought to the H&S sphere and also recognise that it must take positive steps to fix that.
Saying âthatâs in the past and itâs time to move onâ does not rebuild the necessary trust, nor does it encourage those who were alienated to look at H&S with fresh eyes and an open mind.
Keep going, youâre doing great⌠really interesting read.
I must say Iâve never been stressed by our approach or the way we do RAâs. Writing quality manuals for a food manufacturing business makes cadet RAâs seem a (relative) walk in the park.
Itâs other silly rules I have problems with, but Iâll leave that to other threads.
Youâll be pleased to hear that I fed back your previous comments to the OC, and we have now got ELA bits to run on our squadron from our regional staff.
Iâll throw it in the training programme, and add a few bits and examples for flying/shooting to make it feel relevant to cadets.
So thereâs been one win for you by taking the time to reply!
I also do appreciate this viewpoint, on squadron our ability to write RAâs comes from work experience - me in food manufacturing and others through pharmaceutical compliance. We love a form on our squadron. The course could leave those not used to this sort of form filling still in the dark.
Edit to add we did the RA course about 2 years ago, for comparison
Thanks for the reply!
You say itâs not compulsory⌠my OC wing would beg to differ 
Although iâm pretty sure therte motivation is not to make a safer wing, but to âWinâ at something!
Iâll be honest, if there is a more RAFAC orientated H&S qualification, Iâd embrace that, but until then I see the ELA as a nice to have, rather than an essential part of what we do.
Thanks for engaging in conversation @RickWhitehead - as others have said, it is greatly appreciated.
This is likely to be a bit of a mish-mash (itâs been a long day), but Iâd like to pick up on a few points that have been made.
This annoys me as well, and I think highlights my concerns with the current RA form. I feel that this stems from people feeling they need to âshow their workingâ, and the only way of doing that on the form is to put some controls in, then say they arenât adequate and add some more.
(My bold)
I think this is an interesting statement. Iâd argue that by definition, ALARP is aiming for âsafeishâ, or more strictly âsafe enoughâ. No activity is without risk and therefore cannot be 100% safe, so by making a binary assessment the assessor is âroundingâ either up or down. This is fine for an experienced professional, but for a new CFAV who is assessing their first activity a less binary scale would make this easier to consider - something with a âhigher riskâ score would be more likely to make me question whether an activity is actually safe, or whether I should be seeking more advice.
Itâs interesting @RickWhitehead that a lot of your posts have mentioned the risk assessment process. I wonder if the RA form could be redesigned to better capture the process of risk assessment rather than simply the end result. This might help those completing the assessment process to be guided through the process, encouraging more thorough assessment and consideration of hazards, and it would assist people reviewing and auditing risk assessments as they would have a better idea that the full process has been followed.
Consider a risk assessment for an âold-styleâ Bronze Cyber course. For context, itâs essentially 4-5 hour ârun through the Preziâ activity, with a bit of discussion involved. If I were running this (face-to-face), I would have to submit a Risk Assessment for the activity. This sort of activity leads to the âClassroom Trainingâ RA which tends to have a load of gumph about seats being used correctly, tables being used correctly, eye strain, not blocking fire exits with personal items, etc, etc, (one example Iâve just found lists âbreakâ as a hazard, and adds a control of âshould be takenâ). Yes, all of these (with the obvious exception of âbreakâ being a hazard) are legitimate concerns, but they score so low in a severity/likelihood score that they are only listed so that there is a risk assessment that has been completed. If I could instead complete a process-driven form that shows that I have considered the hazards involved in the activity, I could reasonably conclude that there are no significant hazards (itâs as close to 100% safe as an activity can get), and submit an assessment which has no additional controls.
(aside, I can run the same activity at the moment with no risk assessment over the internets).
Iâd second this. Iâm concerned about how many ârisk assessmentsâ are produced in non-sensical ways, which leads to the whole process being largely ignored and âtick boxâ RAs being produced instead.
I get very, very annoyed when I read risk assessments written by other CFAV which are completely meaningless. They over-emphasise low severity/likelihood hazards, add random things that are covered by other policy (âclearancesâ/âall CFAV to have up to date PVG etcâ seems to come up not infrequently - should this really be on an activity RA!?), or âcontrolâ every hazard by âbriefing cadets/CFAVâ while then proceeding to not do any sort of briefing during the activity.
I feel that the RA process locally, in reality, is to find an existing RA for another similar activity, copy and paste the bits that could apply to crossing the street, write down a couple of other things that might happen during the activity and âcontrolâ them on paper only, then send it off to be rubber-stamped. Any actual risks and mitigations are either omitted or lost in the noise.
Something else that I ponder on, which is somewhat related to the low quality of local RAs⌠what should be considered as âtaken as readâ (i.e. not included) on a risk assessment for (e.g.) a classroom activity? Should those same things be âtaken as readâ for (e.g.) a shooting activity? Clearances being a good example here - I âtake it as readâ that all staff involved in an activity are current and competent staff. Maybe I shouldnât be? How about ACP4 issues? Is it fair to assume that all staff/staff cadets are conversant with ACP4, or should I list in my RA that staff must have read it prior to attending? Should I include that there is a risk of fire, and I should complete a fire evac brief, or is it accepted that that should happen regardless? What about security, and run/hide/tell procedures?
</ rambling>
Sorry. Iâll try and still have some brain power left when I come to reply next.
Squirrel, GoodEgg (Thank you for the kinder comments )
The CESO, the Safety Centre and the RSAs are damned if we do, damned if we donât in some areas.
Even though itâs been a few years since there was an amendment to an RA form, it seems like it âOh noâŚnot ANOTHER changeâ, and we all get lambasted.
I can assure everyone that nobody sits there thinking up changes for the sake of changing things, or to annoy highly valuable volunteers.
ACTO 12 (I believe) states that RAs are NOT required for online training.
This is for very real practical purposes. How are you going to be able to satisfy yourself about where people are watching?
How are you able to confirm that people are sat on the correct chair, the correct distance from the screen?
You canât!
You can only advise and rely on their personal discipline.
There should be very rarely a scenario whereby a volunteer will have to write a Risk Assessment from scratch using a blank form.
There is very rarely anything new under the sun, and where ânewâ RAs have had to be produced for ânewâ activities such as VR Flight Simulators or Axe Throwing (seriously), RSAs have created these as templates for Sqns on request.
Iâve done it myself, and all RSAs will assist you in this regard.
You getâŚ. not âvery annoyedâ, but âvery, very annoyedâ when RAs mention staff clearances. I agree that it is not technically a hazard or a control measure that I can immediately think of (It should be a given). Iâve not seen that in my time, but I personally wouldnât get very annoyed at it, let alone very, very annoyed.
If you mean that staff are current on their training to conduct an activity, then that is very much an existing control measure, and should be included.
In the event of the wheel seriously falling off, and HSE getting involved, they would expect to see this happening, and mentioned in a RA.
Within the RA form, there is a section where relevant pamphlets and publications, can be referenced.
Include Run Hide Tell if you deem Terrorism to be a relevant and a potential hazard. If you do, then theyâll probably be on every RA you haveâŚâŚ thus creating more work for yourself. Go outside, youâll have to include Lightning strikes too.
Rare and extraordinary occurrences one and all. Likely hazards? probably not.
Fire Safety briefs are done periodically as required and deemed necessary by the Activity Commander. If cadets are doing the same activity week in, week out, of course we donât expect a safety brief before a first parade, at every parade.
New cadets should of course be instructed on what to do.
I hope that this doesnât come over as too flippant. I assure you that is not my intention, but the theme of some comments this week has been âWeâve too much work to doâ, âThis is irrelevantâ, âWhy do we have to do this?â, âThe RA for isnât goodâ, and youâre almost advocating putting more work in.
The Safety Centre (and indeed the wider HQAC) are constantly trying to eradicate and reduce the admin burden. You might not feel it at the âcoal faceâ, but they are.
H&S and Fire Training shifting onto Ultilearn, has significantly reduced the time it used to (honestly) complete this training from the CD-ROM.
The RSAs Sqn guidance folder guidance has reduced the workload, and reduced the time RSAs usually need to spend at sqns.
The use of MS Teams has made training cheaper, safer (no travelling required) and more environmentally friendly.
I doubt it will replace face-to-face training, thankfully, but I can envisage a point in the near future when a combination of MS Teams and face-to face training will be conductedâŚ. Iâm already planning it.
Wdimagineer2b
Thank you for your observations. I am actually not fully âpushingâ the Party lineâ in these responses. My head is very much over the parapet.
I agree with some of you in some areas, I disagree in others.
The comments about cadets and H&S exemplify one thing; the majority of kids donât get out and about enough to work out how to do something, unless it involves sitting around using phones and getting RSIs.
From the about 8 to 16 I was hardly ever at home during the day in school holidays and weekends (it was a world where the ATC didnât try and fill our spare time) and when I look back we worked out what was dangerous and downright stupid, through trial and error. This spun into cadets whereas now you can see their general lack of nous, that needs just getting out there, getting bruises and cuts, not a âcourseâ.
Iâm really not sure thatâs a fair assessment of the âmajorityâ of kids.
Letâs also consider that back in âthe good old daysâ where we learned through âtrial and errorâ and broken bones, we apparently needed disturbing, graphic instructional films to stop the kids of the time from playing in substations or on railway lines⌠Apparently ânousâ wasnât very common then either!
Going back to the Entry Level AwardâŚ
As I mentioned earlier this was âsoldâ to us on the course with the words âWhat do the cadets get out of this? They get a certificate.â That was it. With that in mind I saw no point in subjecting my cadets to the process of completing, what I consider to be a very child-oriented workbook, for no benefit beyond a colourful piece of paper with their name on it.
Now, Iâve already highlighted some of the other, fairly crucial, shortcomings of this course so Iâm fully prepared to accept that perhaps the benefits of the ELA were also overlooked during the day.
Can someone tell me then please what tangible benefits the ELA brings? Iâm genuinely listening.
Also, please donât think that Iâm just griping about H&S⌠In just the same way I consider that the Corps has missed a trick with STEM too and that most of the âpractical tasksâ on Sharepoint and even the MTA kits are aimed at a 5 or 6 year old level⌠And I love engineering.
And you also had more kids dying/being maimed.
I get this from my mother in law all the time (thinking about it you may be her in disguise) commenting things like "well we always lay the kids on their front in the cot/we didnât worry about expensive childseats, we just held the kids on our knee in the car and my kids all survived.
Is He&S overdone in the RAFAC? In many instances yes, but thatâs because of a) wing staff who donât understand it adding in extra needless requirements and b) old school idiots sticking with what theyâve always done, screwing up, and ruining it for the rest of us.
My OC is pretty confident an ex-cadet got his first job in a Health and Safety roll due to ELA, Iâm not sure on the particulars, but it is why he is keen to run ELA on squadron⌠This was before my time and I donât know the cadetâŚ
Definitely. The recent MT RA springs to mind. I was refused a White Fleet bus because Iâd not done a manual handling course, despite the fact that the driving task didnât require manual handling. The wing commander doesnât understand that GRA are not task specific RAs, and that if there is no manual handling, then the control measures do not need to be implemented.
Brilliant for your cadet, but where does it stop?
There are a lot of Low level, basic qualifications we could teach, but none are really relevant to what our organisation claims to do. We need to move away from the mindset that âany course that provides a qualification should be run as part of our training programmeâ, and instead look at providing courses that provide a qualification with a military or aviation focus.
Was asked for an example of what good ELA has done, I had an example to share⌠not saying that 1 cadet justifies the whole Corps doing ELA, or not⌠Just providing an example.
When I have overheard cadets talking about what they are up to Iâm always pleased that our cadets seem to be enthusiastic, and enjoy a varied programme⌠A few times I have heard cadets on other squadrons comment that all they do is classification - now this may not actually be true, but that is what I have overheard.
Regardless as to how much shooting and flying we get, these activities happen on weekends/in holidays⌠that still leaves us with about 97 parade nights a year after bank holidays etc⌠And if something like ELA takes one or two of those, results in a certificate that can go on a CV, then why not run it? There is still plenty of time for all the other training we offer, and the more structured nights and activities that can be added into the training programme the betterâŚ
Just my thoughts.
Of course this would be the ideal.
And a BTEC Level 2 in Aviation Studies for classification training is spot on.
I think it was benefits to the RAFAC, rather than individuals. Any course could be said to benefit someone, even needlepoint, but that doesnât mean they should be included in our syllabus.
I really like the idea of early workplace H&S education, but I donât think itâs the RAFACs responsibility to teach it.