I’ve also only just noticed that the ‘no fail’ message is from HQ Air. Not RAFAC. And it says it right at the top of the admin order, not just about VA.
Wonderful malaphor. Bit of a damp squid really
So if anything goes wrong, who is ‘carrying the can’ at the end of the day, HQ Air or the CRAFAC?
Is the OC RIAT enabled to stop all activities if they perceive the risk too high to continue, or will a stop order have to come from HQ Air?
Who will be responsible for the risk assessments as this is a ‘no fail’ event?
2 Likes
I mean, I think OC RIAT waving his ‘but HQ AIR said it was a No Fail Event chit’ at the judge could be an enjoyable watch for the neutral fan of the game…
Personally, I’m not convinced that I’ve got the testicular fortitude to risk spending 5 years as the fresh meat on D Wing at Peterhead on the word of some Crab who’ll be away on his pension if it all goes tits up, but I’m always happy to salute the brave.
Quality stuff, as ever…
7 Likes
Could this be that HQ Air consider RIAT as a whole (ie, not specifically the RAFAC Camp) to be no-fail, and therefore HQ RAFAC are trying to ensure it supports volunteers contributing to the RAFAC support of the show?
The exact wording:
RAFAC support to RIAT is considered a no fail tasking by HQ Air.
Us being there is no fail, according to HQ Air. I guess this really does explain why we went ahead in spite of red weather warnings…
I would this as HQ Air advising the paid staff at HQAC that they expect cadets to be there. I suspect there are other things that hq air ask cadets to help with & hq respond back with “unable to support” due to x,y,z (e.g. can cadets parade a squad as part of a station inspection on a Thursday during the day with a weeks notice)
It’s saying to HQAC “your job is to get the volunteers there, don’t put blockers in & don’t fail”
It’s now HQ job to manage the volunteers to deliver the cadet aspect.
2 Likes
Are risk assessments and related factors to be considered ‘blockers’, then who is actually responsible when it goes wrong, HQ Air or CRAFAC?
1 Like
Two stage answer:
HQAir would be responsible. CFAV would get the blame.
CFAV would be responsible, because you don’t get to kill/injure cadets just because some cretin in a Tesco uniform says you have to do X.
Most here will remember the inquiry into the SF selection fatalities - yes, the Training Major at 22SAS was torn apart for having an incredibly poor plan - but the WO’s and SNCO’s carrying out that plan on the day were also heavily blamed for carrying out, and sticking to, a plan that was obviously flawed and didn’t meet what was required on the day.
That’s for individuals who were all regular soldiers with a clear chain of command with the Training Major having responsibility for the event.
Imagine what a judge would say about a ‘but I was following the orders of HQ Air’ defence from someone who wasn’t even a member of HQ Air, or even the RAF, but was a leader in a youth club, and who’s prime responsibility was not to HQ Air, but for the children under their care?
Cessation of chocolate ration for one day?
Or something a bit stronger?
3 Likes
I mean if it was me, this is the point I’d really be emphasising the RAF part of RAFAC along with the cadet forces commission and who allows air cadets to run, fund them, provide uniforms, etc. Aside from common sense and having a challenge culture, if the poo went fan-wards then I think it would be very difficult for the RAF to untie themselves if you followed their direction and “orders”
Given a senior RAF officer has recently told us we can’t do certain activities because accepting the risk is on them, I’d hope we wouldn’t get abandoned if we were following the RAF’s lead and ■■■■ hit the fan.
4 Likes
Oh, my sweet summer child…
I’m going to say something provocative.
Those of us who’ve been around a while will know that for the last 20 years there’s been a relentless ‘fun police’ campaign - ever more ‘thou salt not…’ edicts, evermore paperwork, evermore qualifications required to conduct X activity, all in the name of safety, and with more than a little ‘youve brought this on yourself with your cavalier attitudes and practices’ commentary.
Here’s the provocative bit:
Of the Air Cadets who have been killed on ACO activities since I first joined this organisation in 1989, what proportion have been killed by the action/inaction of CFAV’s, and what proportion have been killed by the action/inaction of the RAF?
And yet the RAF have produced a narrative that it’s the ATC that’s the problem, and it’s the RAF coming in with it’s professionalism to rescue the cadets from the incompetence and recklessness of the CFAV’s.
Given that, do you actually believe that the RAF will stand up in court or a public inquiry, and in the media, for a CFAV who says ‘but I was only following the directives I was given by HQ Air…’?
Do you? Do you really?
5 Likes
There’s also a technicality around orders & responsibilities. Regular & reserve military can be a lawful order that puts the life of someone at risk - that is the nature & in the example above part of the issue that landed in the SnCO & WO was that they were t follow the process & guidelines laid out.
In cadet forces world we are not subject to “lawful orders”, we can instead be given “reasonable instructions” - it is the person receiving the instruction who determines whether it is reasonable.
What this means is that that the onus on the person carrying out the instruction to challenge, to clarify & to raise concerns.
So for the RIAT “no fail” - yes it means that it should go ahead & be supported by the RAFAC but it also means that when running it shouldn’t be cancelled or stopped early due to a failure of welfare or due diligence causing an incident.
Nah, their ‘no fail’ is not my problem.
If the weather forecast - let’s say on the Wednesday before RIAT - says it’s going to be 40+c (not something I ever thought I’d see - when I was a kid, 80’s, 28/29 was a really scorchio day, you might get 3 or 4 all summer…), I’d pull my Sqn out.
For me, it’s not reasonable to have kids sitting/standing out in 40+c for a while weekend, and sleeping in hot, sweaty tents.
I don’t care that HQ Air thinks that it’s a ‘no fail’ - anything that involves that kind of prolonged exposure to that kind of temperature is unreasonable. I would inform the parents, and I’d cancel the trip.
Beginning. Middle. End.
8 Likes
And remember it isn’t anybody at HQ Air who will be facing angry and distressed parents let alone anybody who maybe bereaved.
3 Likes
Absolutely.
I know these kids, my kids go to school with them, my wife teaches them - I see their parents in the supermarket.
If I’d cancel a camping/walking weekend, or a canoeing day, or even - and let’s say this quietly lest He be called by his right name and manifest his evil countenance - a car parking day at a local Ag show - then I’m going to cancel standing around at an air show.
Other people’s delusions are not my problem.
5 Likes
& this is the bit that forces the RAFAC organisers to comply with the no fail objective.
HQ Air says RIAT is “no fail” so if there will be aspects that are likely to cause it fail (e.g. extreme heat in rest areas causing cadet illness) then HQAC are to identify these risks & issues, requesting the support from hq air if their resources are expended to provide a solution (e.g. air conditioning units for the tents like used in bastion)
“No fail” doesn’t necessarily mean “push on regardless” it can mean “identify the issue & put in mitigation & contingencies and remove any bureaucratic barriers”. It’s making cancellation the last possible resort rather than the third choice due to poor planning or consideration.
Now if HQAC goes back to HQ air / 22 group & says “we can’t get enough experienced volunteers as they are annoyed with the car park thing” or weapons or because the first aid training has been paused then it’s HQ air problem to make sure it’s a “no fail”
2 Likes
Now there’s an idea…
2 Likes
I am sorry to be a pedant about it but…
under the paragraph of VA - no where else in the Warning Order does it indicate that the event or its activities are “no fail”.
to me, pedantically reading this the warning order suggests that there is “no failure” in claiming or being issued VA.
the line “no fail” is then followed by it is considered a priority activity for allocation of VA
while i recognise that members on ACC like to debate any given topic, and those many none users suggests ACC members are always out to find the negative and a much of moaners, it would seem true in this case.
As I indicated above the paragraph and wording is discussing VA and its certainty (“no fail”) in being allocated. the use of “RIAT is a no fail task” adds nothing to the whole paragraph other than to suggest to those looking to read more into it, that RIAT is a event which must go ahead regardless of any conditions.
I think this was a poor choice and order of words to indicate VA will be allocated, rather than an instruction RIAT tasking must go ahead and be manned at the planned level regardless which has been hidden in a paragraph about VA as an indication of the view on how important it is to make the RIAT tasking “work”
2 Likes
