What should happen if an event goes ahead and the event has not been submitted for authorisation.
There was a sector BoB parade and the author of the PIPE did not submit to the CO who did not submit to WHQ for authorisation. End result a staff member attended and a car full of cadets and cadets ataff from 6 other sqns attended an unauthorised event.
I have two questions regarding this.
What sort of insurance? The MoD certainly couldnât avoid their liability in the event of an incident, although they could potentially avoid paying out on the death/accident policy for the person responsible for organising it.
CoC - canât see that itâs anything to do with the TSA.
We went to laser tag last year and it turned into a nightmare trip sorting out transport and money to go and it literally slipped my mind to put an app in.
I held my hands up and emailed the Wexo and wing co with my upmost apologies the next day when I funnily enough went to mark the activity as complete 
Not my finest hour.
Kids has fun though.
But I have been to many many wing/region activities where a year on they still havenât been authorised or have a single risk assessment in so I didnât feel too bad as it seems if your at wing level or above it really doesnât matter.
this was the case for RIAT for a handful of yearsâŚ
my WExO refused my F1771 claim until the event was closedâŚbut of course i had no say in why it wasnât or influence in speeding up that process!
Having logged in I see the 75th March Past at RIAT (2016) is still in draft
I can see 4x official RIAT applications in (ie set up by HQAC) only two are showing as approved, the other two still in draft.
Supercamp1 and Supercamp2 are still showing as in draft
National Music camp, Ramstein Camp, Shooting camp (2018), Gibraltar (2018)âŚthe list goes on all showing as âdraftâ
it goes to show that activity approval (and completion) canât be that critical if HQAC canât line their own ducks in a row
I guess question number one is why wasnât the PIPE submitted as it should have been? If it was last minute, poor planning, someone forgot, work got in the way etc, then in my book at least it should be dealt with as a chat and reminder about procedure, assuming this hasnât gone on before and the event didnât have any issues.
If there is something more afoot, then larger investigation and action by Wing Staff is required.
I guess the dilemma faced is if it is reported, will it be dealt with sensibly by the CoC? However, actions of the next link in the chain should never prevent anyone from reporting. There could well be something gone on here that we all could learn from, and this opportunity should not be missed.
why, should you feel compelled to do anything?
leave it if your the OC and someone asks tell the truth, if they get arsy tell them to
do it next year.
Also there was an email sent out a while back saying no activity form it was then on the head of the person arranging it so use that.
Fail to see why this would be anywhere near the remit of the TSA.
I noticed this one when I was handed the Accts 4 form to reclaim the use of SOV for the same parade. There was no reference number so I went to look and found the activity was not authorised at Region level.
I raised the finding via my sector commander and I know its gone up the chain. This is not about hitting someone with a stick but more about highlighting the process gap to avoid it happening again.
Responsibility is two way, yes we all suffer with rejected applications through insufficient information and there is an expectation to have an activity your Squadron has been invited to authorised however, the staff at a Squadron level do have a duty to check things are authorised before sending cadets. At the very least, if checked, you then have the opportunity to raise concerns before going or make the decision not to go. This has never happened to me before and I wasnât checking these things but certainly will now.
What insurance? Doesnât the MOD self-insure?
They self-indemnify but only if âinvolved in authorised Cadet Force (ATC) activities. This
includes activities abroad, provided that the following conditions are met: [of which] a. The activity is recorded and authorised as part of the syllabus or within the ethos of the Cadet ForcesâŚâ and has a 9-page annex of listed activities which are or are nor covered by the indemnity.
Most HQAC activities donât have any SMS apps, those that do are rarely complete or marked as authorised.
Iâm struggling to take the organisation seriously when the head shed canât get their act together on the relatively small number of events they have responsibility for.
Donât stress about it.
We used to do a lot of âprivate activitiesâ, (before this flexibility was removed) parents signed to say they accepted no comeback on the ATC, cadets had a lot of fun times and they still remember them and speak about them, when you see them.
There was a time when parades got a mass permission to prevent admin overload.
That would never have held up if it had been testedâŚ
But it was what happened for years and worked well.
People forget as parents you sign all manner of disclaimers for activities. I bet if the ATC ran car parks theyâd have a sign up saying park here at your own risk, as to not would be financial suicide. A private arrangement is no different.
Consent forms are a difficult thing, do you send the parents/guardian a copy of the intended exercie/activity and the risk assesments so that they can make an âinformed choiceâ whether little Johnny/Jenny can take part.
Imagine something going wrong and their is injury or death and the comment coming back, âyou never told us the risks when signing the formâ.
People sign all sorts of things - that doesnât mean they are worth anything.
The law is clear - It says that you cannot get someone to sign away your liability for death or personal injury through negligence.
This isnât something new - a reflection of the modern world and the influence of American litigation culture⌠Itâs been ratified in law this way for the past 42 years.
So parent signs your âno comeback on the ATCâ waiver and sends Little Johnny off on your unauthorised event.
You donât really know what youâre doing and little Johhny breaks himself. You are negligent⌠and that âwaiverâ isnât worth the paper it was written on.
The very best it might be worth is to remove liability from the ATC and place it squarely on the individual who foolishly ran the event without top cover.
The idea that one can get parents to sign a waiver is still scarily prevalent.
It doesnât work like that. We still owe them a duty of care and the parent, and indeed the cadet themself, still has a legitimate expectation that we are going to look after them.
Anyone who runs an unauthorised activity, especially one of increased risk (which is where these âwaiversâ were/are routeinly employed) is a total fool! They are personally liable if anything goes wrong.
Not even individuals who run their own outdoor activities take personal liability - they have insurance.
As a CFAV who just didnât bother to follow the rules youâd have absolutely NOTHING. No top cover, no insurance⌠Youâd be in the dock facing prison, compensation, and very hefty fines.
The reason we arenât permitted to âdo our own thingâ is two fold:
To protect our CFAVs - if itâs properly authorised and run in accordance with that authorisation then they are protected from personal liability.
But primarily itâs to protect our cadets! By requiring proper authorisation we can reasonably ensure that the event will be run properly and safely by people who know what theyâre doing and thus we are doing our best to keep our cadets safe.
You really might want to think about all of that Instead of grumbling about âthe good old daysâ.
Also worth noting, no comeback on the ATC didnât mean no comeback on you as the organiser/supervisor.
No crown indemnity these days so the parents could still sue you directly.
Does anyone offer ATC personnel the sort of insurance scheme that CCFA offers for CCF? It is explicitly designed to fill the gap where the MOD disowns liability as the activity wasnât properly authorised, and school insurance disowns liability because it was a CCF activity not on school premises (e.g. training areas or ranges). Itâs pretty broad:
when on CCF duty or commuting to or from CCF duty, training, games, and related social activities whilst on duty, or business connected with the Combined Cadet Force
which would cover the classic bowling trip, for example.
Nothing quite like that.
We have no cover at all where an activity isnât properly authorised.
There is an optional personal insurance scheme offered. Three additional tiers of cover (beyond the basic which everyone gets as a member of the Corps) which CFAVs, CivCom members, and 16+ cadets can take out personally. Or indeed they are free to choose their own cover.
But itâs intended for personal injury rather than liability.
The list of authorised activities in ACP 300 is two-part.
Part 1 - covered by MOD Indemnity (for liability) and ATC Insurance for personal injury;
and Part 2 - where participants are covered by ATC insurance for personal injury but where there is no MOD indemnity. In this case the activity provider must have public liability cover.
Ten Pin Bowling is included in part 2. So, provided that the Sqn has the appropriate SMS event in place, it will all be authorised. Cadets and staff will be covered for personal injury under the ATC insurance but the staff will have to confirm that the bowling alley has public liability insurance in place.