It might, possibly, have had a very slim benefit in a very limited range of circumstances in the past when we held the paper forms. Though I can’t think of any benefits myself. In all the years as an Adj I never once recall looking at the paper 3822A to find out what their CIN was.
Now that we are uploading and ditching the original email/paper form I can see even less benefit.
But it’s still there in today’s version 5.0.
Seems like we’re getting a daily update to these blasted forms… As always, they are all improperly version numbered too.
Version 5 of a document that has supposedly been months in the making and been read and signed off by a lot of legal bods/senior staff before V1 was released.
They also shouldn’t have started at Version 1 - it wasn’t 3822A version one… It was a major revision to the previous, different 3822A so it should have been “version 11.0”, or whatever next major version followed from the old form.
By now we’d be up to, at worst, Ver 11.5 (if not 11.0.5 if we were really thinking about numbering and the actual changes which have been made).
To be honest, I’m inclined to think that this ‘whole number’ approach to versioning is probably because someone at HQAC wants it to match the SharePoint numbering, and they don’t realise that SharePoint supports minor version numbers - you just have to switch it on!
It is easy, new form , new version = 2 neither system is wrong but the pointvis 5 versions in 2 weeks = poor planning. Personally they can call them a,b,c, I,ii,iii 1.1, 1.2 etc. the RAFAC 3822A is a new form the 3822A was kept as thats how everyone refers it to. Guess we should have got Bill Gates to give it a version number
This wasn’t a brand new form; there have been so many versions of the 3822A over the years that I’ve lost count.
The current design is new and demands a major version number, but it shouldn’t have been 1 because it is not the first version of the form we’ve had in service.
The Organisation disagrees with you and it was decided that the changes constituted a completely new set of forms, which they are.
It is on, but used in a different way to handle draft documentation. SO2 Bader Dev and I have been talking about this and it has apparently been that way forever - rightly or wrongly, and we may look at changing how the platform works in the future allow incremental change.
Whether you like it or not, it is a new form and it has new ownership. Happy to discuss this with you via email (oc.vsdt@ is me).
Clearly the org does disagree with me, as I disagree with it. That’s fine… This is ACC.
If it’s a brand new form completely separated from the old form then, arguably, it should have had a new form number. If it retains the same form number then, arguably, it should have followed as the next major version number from the old form.
The distinction that one is an “RAF F3822A” and the other is a “RAFAC F3822A” is flimsy at best.
I see no reason to get into it via email but I appreciate the offer.
Can anyone remind me, can staff cadets fill out these forms themselves? The IBN says we can accept forms from their email address but doesn’t say they can complete them themselves.
Having just sat through adding my first bunch of new recruits onto the system, may I request a change to the “New Cadet” system?
On “Add another Next of Kin” a) the 3822A states “additional contact details” rather than additional NofK and B) the 3822A didn’t give a space for that additional contact’s address, yet it’s mandatory on SMS.
We’re going to do a push on FB direct to parents letting them know what the situation is as we’re fairly sure that most didn’t get / ignored the email.
