Even more bizarrely, it seems to prohibit the wearing of the Norgie in MTP?
As a new norgie style shirt has been procured as per the PCS system. I’ve got the full PCS kitting powerpoint somewhere if you want it
It’s just a particularly poor update.
To be honest, if you’re at the stage where you’re cracking the norgie out the dress regs have been long forgotten. We aren’t allowed to wear anything warm really, no snugpaks, buffalos or beanie hats in AP1358C.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=13263]It’s just a particularly poor update.[/quote]I’d go so far as to call it shockingly bad.
I thought that it didn’t permit the wearing of the RAFA youth charity wristband yet - it does, but that change wasn’t highlighted in red (0154). I wonder what else has been snuck in and not flagged.
[quote=“incubus” post=13272][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=13263]It’s just a particularly poor update.[/quote]I’d go so far as to call it shockingly bad.
I thought that it didn’t permit the wearing of the RAFA youth charity wristband yet - it does, but that change wasn’t highlighted in red (0154). I wonder what else has been snuck in and not flagged.[/quote]
This highlights that whilst Mitch is the SME, or should this be owned by the next CACWO :?: it needs to be properly checked prior to release as numerous errors are found after release, which will do nothing to improve the coalface’s impression of HQACO. The date of amendment & release was far enough apart for this to have taken place anyway.
ACP 20 is still awaiting the establishments which have been set to follow since release a few months ago.
When AP1358C was released we were told that ATF are not the owners of the document and would no longer provide subject matter advice. This would be sought through CACWO.
I hope that whoever takes on the role of custodian for AP1358C should start by doing a review of the entire document and aiming to address any remaining typographical errors, logic errors, grammatical errors, lacks of clarity or outright contradictions whilst noting areas for future improvements.
I feel that the custodian needs to be one of the permanent staff at HQAC (though not necessarily at ATF) but that they should engage CACWO for input or assistance.
Personally I don’t think that any of the permanent staff would be any better.
I know that when a possible review was being talked about, someone at HQAC suggested taking the services of a CFAV who’d already worked on proofing some HQAC documents in the past.
The person has plenty of time to correct all the little errors: content based, typographical, and general formatting.
Nothing ever came of it.
People don’t like to let go. Even if they don’t have the time and if someone else can demonstrably do the job better.
So why have all amendments been made by WO Mitchell ATF HQAC??
Better still, why don’t we all act as proof readers for our publications? How many times do you see on here words to the effect of ‘the publication is wrong’, or ‘the rules are vague’. How many of us actually do something about it?
In aircraft engineering in the RAF, there is the MoD Form 765 (Unsatisfactory Feature Report). Engineers state which Publication, Section and Chapter etc is wrong and they suggest what it should say. The sponsor then considers the suggestions and either incorporates them or ignores it (they should tell you why they’re ignoring it incidentally).
I was always under the impression that F765s applied to all publications, but apparently this isn’t the case any more, but most publications should have amendment instructions of some sort. AP818 has its own Unsatisfactory Feature Report page within the Introduction section and our own AP1919, at the foot of the amendment record table on page 2 states, ‘Amendments should be submitted, in the first instance, to Headquarters Air Cadets’.
Has anyone in the wider ACO ever tried originating amendments for publications? I would suggest that these days, all that would be needed would be an e-mail to the publication sponsor with details of the error and the suggested amendment. We spend a lot of time complaining about what’s wrong, so how about spending a bit of that time suggesting what to do to make things better in a way that might just achieve something?
Yes, on a number of topics in a number of publications.
Some have been implemented, some have been completely ignored.
So why have all amendments been made by WO Mitchell ATF HQAC??[/quote]
You’d have to ask him.
As it’s an AP it falls under Air Command authority, through the RAF Dress & Clothing Policy Committee.
HQAC are not the document owner and as such it would be improper for ATF to offer SME advice - they’d have to second-guess the committee.
Though, I’d assume that since Mitch was responsible for the original draft document (and presumably for much of the final version also) he may well have forwarded suggestions to them and when the authority came down the chain to amend, it was passed to him.
There is a CFAV who sits on the committee as his day job.
Better still, why don’t we all act as proof readers for our publications? How many times do you see on here words to the effect of ‘the publication is wrong’, or ‘the rules are vague’. How many of us actually do something about it?
In aircraft engineering in the RAF, there is the MoD Form 765 (Unsatisfactory Feature Report). Engineers state which Publication, Section and Chapter etc is wrong and they suggest what it should say. The sponsor then considers the suggestions and either incorporates them or ignores it (they should tell you why they’re ignoring it incidentally).
I was always under the impression that F765s applied to all publications, but apparently this isn’t the case any more, but most publications should have amendment instructions of some sort. AP818 has its own Unsatisfactory Feature Report page within the Introduction section and our own AP1919, at the foot of the amendment record table on page 2 states, ‘Amendments should be submitted, in the first instance, to Headquarters Air Cadets’.
Has anyone in the wider ACO ever tried originating amendments for publications? I would suggest that these days, all that would be needed would be an e-mail to the publication sponsor with details of the error and the suggested amendment. We spend a lot of time complaining about what’s wrong, so how about spending a bit of that time suggesting what to do to make things better in a way that might just achieve something?[/quote]
I have mentioned 765’s in a previous post and when I mentioned it to wing they looked at me as if I just killed the Cat as far as I am awear it can be used for all AP’s well at least it could 3 or 4 years ago! The downside being is a 765 can be a right pain to fill out correctly if you have never done one before
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=13341]
In aircraft engineering in the RAF, there is the MoD Form 765 (Unsatisfactory Feature Report). Engineers state which Publication, Section and Chapter etc is wrong and they suggest what it should say. The sponsor then considers the suggestions and either incorporates them or ignores it (they should tell you why they’re ignoring it incidentally).
I was always under the impression that F765s applied to all publications, but apparently this isn’t the case any more, but most publications should have amendment instructions of some sort. AP818 has its own Unsatisfactory Feature Report page within the Introduction section and our own AP1919, at the foot of the amendment record table on page 2 states, ‘Amendments should be submitted, in the first instance, to Headquarters Air Cadets’. [/quote]
The F765 was often used as a vehicle for requesting ammendment or correction although it was only ever applicable to engineering documentation, its authority was in the old AP100C-01?, I think now incorporated in JAP(D)100C series.
I gave up years ago trying to get our ACPs etc corrected, as Handbrake House never took notice apart from once to tell me that I had no idea how to have publications ammended or what was involved. At the time I was the Engineering and Publications Authority for a large swathe out of the AP113 series (A through F), even then they didn’t change their tone. It really makes you want to help…
It’s now the MAA MAP-01 Chapter 8.2, but the principles are still the same.
The collective will recall the HQ 22 (Trg) Gp Audit of HQAC in 2011, which for a while was accessible through a link on here, and may still be visible through Sharepoint. One of the formal Non-Conformities was a lack of Training Evaluation ie a mechanism to find out if the training had the effect desired. I have it on good authority that part of the discussion around this NC and linked to some of the other Observations, included the amendment of training documentation; HQAC doesn’t have any mechanism to do it.
It’s a shame when ‘brush-offs’ from the HQ dampen the enthusiasm of our people and to have an amendment procedure really wouldn’t take much effort on the HQ’s behalf, after all, we would do most of the work for them. It wouldn’t be difficult to develop something - anything - and actually, it would achieve an awful lot.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=13084]Yes, let’s please stop this endless attempt to classify CS95/PCS as PPE.
It’s not.
PPE is designed to protect from some specific H&S risk; not to ‘protect’ you from getting your civies dirty.
If any evidence were needed (beyond simply logical thought) one need look no further than JSP886, Vol 6, Pt 5 “Clothing”, Ch 12 “Personal Protective Equipment”.
[quote]Description of PPE. PPE is all clothing and equipment designed to be worn or held by a person at work to protect the user against one of more risk(s), other than:
a. Ordinary working clothes and uniforms not specifically designed to protect the health & safety of the wearer."
…[/quote]
Pretty simple I’d have thought. The only PPE we require for skill at arms is hearing protection when shooting.
The Safe System of Training is:
Safe Persons, Safe Equipment, Safe Practice, Safe Place.
Note that it doesn’t include “Camouflage Uniform”.[/quote]
For some jobs like mine as well as other roles it is classed as PPE
I sat in a meeting the other day and a MAcr was saying amendments via 765’s are often over looked so the ACO is no different
It’s a good job that we don’t have to go down the 760 route as that would be an even bigger 'mare to manage than if we used 765s! No matter that the F765 is an ideal vehicle for what we need.
Hmm, thanks Papa November, I wonder if we could 760 HQAC itself?
I think that they meet the critera!
Does it perform as required by the demander? - No
Does it make random unexplained noises? - Yes
Broken? - Almost certainly
Time for an F760 then, so which desk at 22 Gp do I send it? 