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.
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.
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!
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!
Anyone else yearn for the golden days of being sporadic…“anyone fancy an excercise at the weekend?”
So much
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.
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.
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.
I really do think we should have greater training including case study reviews as part of Sqn Officer training. The classic example I use is the Kaylee McIntosh accident.
I can only speak of being a cadet in times gone by.
BUT
We had an element of paperwork even then and risk mitigation.
I dont disagree at all with the need for some of the admin we do.
What i do disagree with is the repetative elements and parts which HQAC have foisted on to us.
E.g. we still dont have a decent repositry of generic RAs for all manner of cadet activities avaialble to assist Sqns in making their own.
This to me is a no brainer.
But yes.
I do miss being able to plan during the day an event to take cadets to the local bit of forest etc for a game of capture the flag, without needing a full EASP etc.
Simply having FA trained staff a FA kit and a basic brief at start of activity was suffcient.
Whilst im on it…
Also, simple staff led nav exercises out into the local countryside from the sqn on a parqde night. Without need for a BEL or LL!
Again, common sense allowed these things.
Oversight, bum covering and a fear of legality has crushed such fun acticities.
To do the same now i need. Asssuming i want to still take whole sqn out.
x7 lowland leaders
An sms app for detail level taking 3 hours to write.
Register of cadet pre training.
Just impossible, so doesnt happen.
Often the present is better than the past.
But just sometimes, the past was better.
Hey ho.
I miss the old days, but I understand the need for most of the admin. I do think though that when events are being binned for using an old form, despite it containing all the necessary info that things have gone too far. And that’s an HQ issue, not a CFAV WSO issue, at the end of the day they need to toe the line as well
This is a case study of a case study.
But the failings were so great and so numerous by individuals that no amount of admin will fix them.
Stupidity and poor individual leadership killed that kid.
Or, you know, any training…
agreed - where is the Cadet benefit.
I am not taking away from:
but have our actual practices on the ground changed? do we behave any differently, take different walking routes for example, or in smaller groups than we ever did?
I recognize having evidence to show appropriate thought has been completed for an event, but it just formalizes what always took place unrecorded - the Cadets see no different to a walk I complete next month to the same walk i did 15 years ago - all the effort is on my part and for the benefit of the CoC…
Jesus…
This!
Exactly this!
The event hasnt become any safer because of the admin. And the csdet benefit gained is zero.