That’s what ATF said 10 years ago, I suppose the logic would be that staff would put pressure on organisers to sort it out!
2 Likes
Yes - but at least the volunteer will have a view of that process I would imagine. Currently you hand in a sheet of paper to Adjutant / WHQ and you have no idea where it is sitting. The days of “oh yes, it’s been submitted” when in actual fact its still on someones desk at squadron or in a briefcase at home etc will be gone. And yes, I would expect the volunteers to put pressure on the Activity IC to DO THEIR JOB.
Only the once, maybe twice. Then you’ll get volunteers who will look at the Bader event, see who the activity IC is and go no thanks this time, I’ll do something else.
Job? You’re having a laugh, right?
2 Likes
Activity IC to do the role they volunteered for?
I’m carrying on this conversation over here, rather than the climatic thread.
Just because it isn’t unusual for it not to be approved, doesn’t make it right. It really is getting more and more annoying seeing wing/region/HQ events going ahead without approval. Here’s some policy for those doing this as a gentle reminder:
ACTO 10:
1- It is mandatory to use the Bader Squadron Management System (SMS) to record and authorise all events involving RAF Air Cadets (RAFAC) cadets and Cadet Forces Adult Volunteers (CFAVs) which take place away from unit premises.
2- This Policy applies to events organised by, or on behalf of, Wing HQs, Region HQs and RAFAC HQ, as well as Squadrons and Detached Flights. The policy applies to Wing Staff Officers, Regional Staff Officers and RAFAC HQ Staff Officers.
16- All events are to be authorised on SMS prior to them taking place.
ACP 300:
PI 306 1. a. Cover is only effective during periods of participation in, travelling to, and travelling from pre-authorised ATC activities as detailed at annex C.
- MoD will indemnify all members of the MoD Sponsored Cadet Forces (The Sea Cadet Corps, The Volunteer Cadet Corps, The Combined Cadet Force and The Air Training Corps) while engaged in authorised activities. All Cadet Force activities must be conducted in accordance with procedures set out in the relevant MoD and RAF Air Cadet publications.
Do I need go on? The policy makes pretty damn clear all events, even if organised at a higher level, need to be properly pre-approved. Yet time and time again we’re seeing wing/region/HQ events carrying on whilst not approved. Or occasionally ‘self-approved’ with not a single file attached to the event…
4 Likes
And with RIAT there’s even less excuse because there is someone with a highly ranked post with this as their sole role
So if it all goes wrong and heaven forbid that people are in front of the Coroner and then the Courts, standing in the dock, does this mean there is a risk of someone from HQAC standing there saying ‘well the activity wasn’t authorised’ and here is the printout, so we’re not liable here.
Someone could be in very deep dodo as the activity was not ‘authorised’. Blame always travels down to the lowest level.
Down to paid level as well as the volunteer. You can imagine the accident report wording now
“whilst not encouraged & contrary to stated policy, it had become common & accepted practise across the organisation that events arranged at Wing Level or above would frequently go ahead despite the approval process not being completed or reviewed”
You can imagine the news reports & statements before they’ve been written.
2 Likes
They could try but I think they’d struggle to wriggle out of liability for something like RIAT that they are fully aware of. TBH even if it was a squadron event that wasn’t authorised HQ would really struggle to wriggle out of liability if it was an activity which one might expect us to do. They might be able to go after the organiser personally to recover the costs but that’s a whole different ball game
Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of a statement like that.
5 Likes
Whilst they may reasonably expect the activity, their get out clause ‘you went ahead when it wasn’t authorised’.
The Daily Fail and the Sun would have a field day! It would be horrendous for the organisation.
But that isn’t really my point, although it is a point. My point is that it’s just unfair. We seem to have to jump through so so so many hoops just to get that green approved sticker next to our event name. Yet others aren’t even attaching files then cracking on with an activity. Or adding really poor documentation and then cracking on.
I’ve said it above, but the RIAT application doesn’t annoy me that much compared to other stuff I’ve seen as the RIAT application has a plethora of high quality paperwork/RAs/JIs/AOs etc etc. All really well written, makes sense, is up to date etc.
What annoys me is the typical “Wing 6-a-side” that has one AO and one RA added, and the AO contains no useful information. Not even who the dedicated ‘safe people’ are. Just a ‘TBC’ in every box. And loads of references to the wrong event, or an old event. That’s what annoys me. If I did that I would not get my event approved. No way. Yet they go ahead with the event while it’s still in draft too!
7 Likes
The London Wing FT death a few years ago ended up with lots of people explaining how an event that shouldn’t have been authorised at Wing (if at all) got signed off by a member of Wing Staff (who wasn’t the FT Officer).
I assume a non-authorised event would be even worse!
1 Like
Anyone else yearn for the golden days of being sporadic…“anyone fancy an excercise at the weekend?”
10 Likes
So much
1 Like
A million times yes.
Funny thing is.
We didnt kill cadets back then.
All.of this extra admin hasnt improved safety (statistically).
We are worse off time wise to generate the fun, engaging events, cadets actually want.
3 Likes
But were the activities back then simpler or less often?
Shooting would have been single shot rifles
Fieldcraft would have been nill or very minimal
AT/DofE would have been as risky but
Flying was more plentiful so less pressure to rush cadets through or accept pilots of lower ability or medical standards.
Also how many were injured? Crown immunity also kicked in for a fair amount of activities meaning they weren’t reported as much.
As someone who has been at the wrong end of legal action due to a RAFAC activity, I can’t emphasise enough how useful a good RA, and Admin instruction/method statement are when trying to prove that you complied with the rules, and you did your part to keep risk ALARP.
3 Likes
This is the point I have to constantly harp on to people about. It’s not because I want you to write a load of admin; it’s to protect you as an instructor if you happen to make a mistake or something goes wrong.
10 Likes