MT Risk Assessing

So a new GRA for MT has been added to Sharepoint, and I want to get people’s opinions on it.

The highest rated ‘Impact Score’ seems to be a 3, with many being 2. Yet in column d it states “Injuries ranging from minor to fatal.”. Surely if something has the potential to be fatal, ie an RTA/I, should the Impact not be at least a 4, possibly a 5?

HQ RAFAC regularly say that MT is one of our biggest risks, which I do agree with, yet this GRA has no risks that go above a rating of 6 total, which is ‘low risk’. I can’t really wrap my head around it. I assume I am misunderstanding something about to 5010c layout.

1 Like

I would agree, anything that is risk to life should have an impact of 5. The 5010 is then meant to use that as a calculated value against the risk of it happening.


It seems to be the L and I are ‘with existing controls’, so for MT, the controls will reduce the Likelihood, but not the Impact IMO.

The whole thing just seems odd. I’ve seen RAs for classroom activity with higher scores…

1 Like

The RA at the top states that Impact number is unlikely to change with control measures so they shouldn’t be reducing that.

Maybe they’ve just decided a score of 4 or 5 is worse than death. Continued RAFAC Volunteering under Tony or forced attendance to traffic safety meetings.


Could be that someone inexperienced has written this.

Trying to train new risk owners is fun; so few seem to get that the initial scoring should be before any control measures are implemented - essentially if no internal organisational rules, regulations etc existed. These are then brought into the scoring for the residual risk as mitigating actions.

There is then also the question of timescale. The likelihood of a road traffic collision happening on a single journey is probably a 1, even before control measures. But the likelihood of a collision happening at some point in one’s driving life is probably a 4.

It was uploaded by a HQAC Safety Assurance Advisor, so I’d like to hope they know what they are doing. Even if they didn’t write it them selves, it’s been seen by them!

That’s an interesting point! Surely we are always working on a per-activity basis? Otherwise almost every ‘Likelihood’ score would need to be a 5! The box at the bottom certainly seems to be worded on a per-activity basis imo.

1 Like

More importantly and I know this to be a fact as i was told, they are using version 1 of the F5010c. I have been told by a wing HSEP person and a former wing commander who is now a Fg Off in the past, that the risk assessment is invalid if you use the wrong version of the form.

That can’t be correct, otherwise every single dynamic risk assessment is invalid - given I’ve historically recorded mine in my notepad as I go and that’s definitely not the same form.

1 Like

That’s rubbish, from a risk assessing and legal perspective you just need to demonstrate you have assessed risk. Could be on a fag packet.

It also refers to Staff Cadets as Instructor Cadets!


I wouldn’t expect a new RA to be on an old version of the form, though. Just checked Safety Hub - latest version is 4.0 - this is on 1.0.

1 Like

We were on V2.0 not long ago, What happened to V3.

Has anything changed?

Just had a look. Between V1 and V4 Activity commander has been changed to Risk Assessor in signature box at the bottom. Strangely, V2 and V4 appears the same. The only difference I can see is one says Version 2.0 and the other says Version 4.0.

I think 4 must be the same as 2…

^ that’ll be because they managed to publish the MT Risk Assessment over the “master” (blank) 5010C

Ha, good spot. V3 is just the new MT one :rofl: :rofl:

Does anyone from HQAC check their work or do they just let us do it for them?

Why should we bother when the hive mind is so good at it?

So, when are we going to be asked to changed our V2.0 risk assessments to V4.0 risk assessments?

1 Like

If anyone tries that then they can get in the bin.

Really, V3.0 and V4.0 need removing from Sharepoint entirely. V3.0 was obviously a mistake. But I guarantee someone somewhere is going to get their SMS application rejected because they’re “using V2.0 instead of the latest V4.0”. I assume it’ll be acceptable to just go and change the V number in the footer from 2 for 4? :sweat_smile: