A lot of time the MOD should probably be suing the parents!
Exactly.
The risk: very small.
The risk of parents sueing in the event of an incident: high.
The consent forms, much as they can be a pain, were brought in for a reason and have a time limitation for a good reason.
Was the form out of date as in outside the three months or was the form within the three months BUT a new VERSION of the form been created in the meantime. If the former, fine the cadets donât fly. If the latter if the form used is the correct version WHEN ISSUED then the cadets should have been allowed to fly. If a form version changes it should be updated in due course, not all old versions scrapped. If we did that cadets in for 5 years would have had to fill in 5 3822As by now.
Out of date signatures from a previous visit, ie outside the 3 month window.
The question to ask is : how many parents have actively sought to sue the Corps and if so what for?
I for the life of me do not recall anyone saying in all my years in the Corps that parents were sueing the Corps for injuries or accidents. Knowing how staff talk if they had parents sueing the Corps and it was as rife as it is made out, we would all know. Iâve known cadets get injured quite seriously playing sports for sqn, wing and region and had cadets get hurt on squadron activities and the parents accept thatâs how it is, Iâve never had one come to me complaining and seeking recompense. The fact we have this form for flying is nothing to do with âsafetyâ (only the flying community would try and kid us that it was) but more to do with the increasing obsession with covering sphincters. It fills me with despair that staff at squadrons seem to relish this sort of thing and almost love to think theyâre getting one over on parents.
We seem to have fallen to the level of people scared of their own shadows as we impose more and more admin on parents. Iâve had parents complain as last year they filled out consent form after consent form, for no reason other than filling out a consent form as a-hole covering has exploded.
Mind you as someone who grew up in the 70s I am much more relaxed about things, given what I and my contemporaries got up to. It is upsetting that some of these will be those advocating we put all these forms out there are of similar age and older.
Our own children went through school in ambulance chasing mayhem of the 90s and early 00s and I cannot recall any parents going after a quick buck and God knows we had parents at the school who would get over excited about little things. If our kids came home and said what theyâd been up to, we never got excited. Some of their mates parents werenât so, which was confusing as they were the same age as us.
I think that currently parents could sue the Corps under breach of promise or something similar. Many have had their children join and not seen even the briefest glimpse of the inside of an aircraft to undertake some level of flying training.
I think the problem is that we do NOT hear about these things. The corps is very compartmentalised in its structure. Things that happen in different regions or wings do not get reported. Good or Bad.
I know of who 3 occasions where the corps has being sued. One from the 1980s when I was a cadet, one in the 00s which didnât get anywhere as the cadets went against a direct instruction concerning safety and a third which still dragging on.
Unless you or someone close to you there you are not going to hear of it. It could be one for a FOA request id tyou are that interested.
Why hide it?
You donât need major details but it would help us to rationalise why all of a sudden we get hit with a floodwall of admin. We are increasingly expected to be wholly responsible for things and dump our admin on parents, yet get told nothing to help us explain, except thatâs what weâve been told to do. We arenât stupid and neither are parents.
Out of court settlements are confidential by that same nature.
Had the pleasure of taking some cadets to 5AEF at Wittering today.
Their (new) building is only 2 mins drive from the Guardroom, easy access.
I think that the weekend flying slots are still built around the 4 hr ATC shift timings that are currently set in concrete. This 4 hr window doesnât easily fit in with the âfly 3 cadets, have a breakâ that is the flight time limitation for the AEF pilots. So, the timings are tight for 24 cadets, but can just about work out.
5AEF has sent out new information sheets to the various Wgs; please make sure that you get the in-date version.
In a few weeks, one of the staff, Terry (the âMaster of Ceremoniesâ for the cockpit trainer) is moving off to retirement. Hope others get to hear a few of his âwar storiesâ before he goes, he really should write them down. 
EDIT - on Bader for AEF activity input, 5AEF = Wyton still!
Good to hear; itâs a nice set up isnât it, compared to the various degrees of portacabin you can find around the Tutor world? When the operational issues are solved - some of which are well beyond reach of anyone in the 3/6FTS CoC, it will be a great place to be.
Terry has some very interesting stories indeed. You could quite happily spend a couple of days down the pub with him - or maybe he should write a book!
24 cadets Wow. The current allocation for 1AEF is 4 (four), they have 3 aircraft but only 1 1/2 pilots.
Sometimes itâs eight. Although that allocation is usually split between two squadrons rather than one.
That will be a whole days allocation, not just for one sqn.
Four is a full dayâs allocation at 1AEF usually, sometimes itâs 8.
A days allocation for 1 AEF is 4 (FOUR).
Sometimes itâs 8 (EIGHT). Honest.
Linked to the numbers of Tutor pilots with AEFs; an IBN was released yeasterday asking for suitably qualified volunteers to bolster the numbers currently available.
I see from FB that 7AEF qualified their first VGS Instructor to fly Tutor AEF sorties last weekend.