Got told tonight,hope it isn’t the case, that if a name isn’t on the SMS application you’re not insured.
Thoughts?
What kind of application?
- local
- pipe
- Fieldcraft
- AT
Name where?
- staff name
- cadet name
- sponsor name
Quite probably true as only ‘approved’ activities are indemnified by the MOD. So if people aren’t listed on the approved activity, now the lists are more easily accessible, they could turn round and deny any payouts on that basis I would have thought.
We’ve certainly had a few notes to make sure the lists are accurate on the day.
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=9984]What kind of application?
- local
- pipe
- Fieldcraft
- AT
Name where?
- staff name
- cadet name
- sponsor name[/quote]
Any app. Any name.
the issue here caused by the fact you can’t add staff after the activity is approved by wing.
That’s right. You need a name on the application to ensure it’s approved.
If there is a query about the staff going, add the potential ones but don’t cross any safety lines.
eg. Smith, Jones, Bloggs and Doe are all listed, but only Smith and Jones can make it in the end. Make sure you numbers don’t pass the threshold for supervision, and that the remaining staff still have (if required) the necessary qualifications.
If it ends up being covered by another Sqn, get email clearance from your Wing HQ in lieu of a change to the pre-authorised application. If necessary document their qualifications.
If it’s a local activity you do what you need and then update the system afterwards.
Don’t forget, the online systems are requests for permission to undertake an activity. Change the activity in some way and you render your request invalid - otherwise what’s the point of it? The only changes you can make are to cadets, recognising the transient nature of cadet attendance.
If you are having to change staff all the time, you might have to start questioning do you have the right buy-in from the team? Odd changes are normal in the grand scheme of things.
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=9988]That’s right. You need a name on the application to ensure it’s approved.
If there is a query about the staff going, add the potential ones but don’t cross any safety lines.
eg. Smith, Jones, Bloggs and Doe are all listed, but only Smith and Jones can make it in the end. Make sure you numbers don’t pass the threshold for supervision, and that the remaining staff still have (if required) the necessary qualifications.
If it ends up being covered by another Sqn, get email clearance from your Wing HQ in lieu of a change to the pre-authorised application. If necessary document their qualifications.
If it’s a local activity you do what you need and then update the system afterwards.
Don’t forget, the online systems are requests for permission to undertake an activity. Change the activity in some way and you render your request invalid - otherwise what’s the point of it? The only changes you can make are to cadets, recognising the transient nature of cadet attendance.
If you are having to change staff all the time, you might have to start questioning do you have the right buy-in from the team? Odd changes are normal in the grand scheme of things.[/quote]
I think we’re on the same page. What’s being approved is the activity itself. Based upon the staff numbers. What was queried tonight is if an additional staff member now available to attend. Are they insured? I can’t see why not.
Yes they are as long as its an approved activity. You are not approving staff to attend you are approving the event based on the staff and their quals. All staff (and cadets) are insured so long the activity is either a core activity or approved in some way.
Thank you. I thought that would be the case. It would be a rather odd state of affairs if our insurance status was decided purely on the presence of our name on a list. Especially a list which is uneditable.
I feel we owe it to staff to ensure that they are covered if they attend and activity, not only from an insurance perspective, but also for pay and expenses, where entitled. I wouldn’t trust our masters amd mistresses to duck out of anything on a technicality.
I didn’t think staff lists could be altered after the activity had been approved, unless you go through the unapprove - reapprove nonsense.
We put every member of staff down for every single activity, just so that we are covered for last minute situations and recently I’ve included CWC as they may help with transport. Initially on this system we only put staff intending to attend, but this just became another admin task if things changed. The activities we do between us and the other 2 sqns we generally do things with, we had all staff listed, while only 5 actually went. This is the normal situation but it’s just ball ache to do things differently.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=9995]I feel we owe it to staff to ensure that they are covered if they attend and activity, not only from an insurance perspective, but also for pay and expenses, where entitled. I wouldn’t trust our masters amd mistresses to duck out of anything on a technicality.
I didn’t think staff lists could be altered after the activity had been approved, unless you go through the unapprove - reapprove nonsense.
We put every member of staff down for every single activity, just so that we are covered for last minute situations and recently I’ve included CWC as they may help with transport. Initially on this system we only put staff intending to attend, but this just became another admin task if things changed. The activities we do between us and the other 2 sqns we generally do things with, we had all staff listed, while only 5 actually went. This is the normal situation but it’s just ball ache to do things differently.[/quote]
The problem with that approach, (not that i disagree with the practicalities of it) is that sms apps credit activities to your Bader account as having attended.
I know, but until and unless they make the staff side as dynamic as the cadet, wrt actually attending, to not do it that way, you just acquire another admin task that is invariably last minute, when you should really be concentrating on the activity. Which is what I found in the early days of sms applications.
I’ve got dozens of things that I’ve never attended on my account, but does it make a difference to me, nope and does anyone really care, I doubt it?
If it does and if anyone did see above.
I know, but until and unless they make the staff side as dynamic as the cadet, wrt actually attending, to not do it that way, you just acquire another admin task that is invariably last minute, when you should really be concentrating on the activity. Which is what I found in the early days of sms applications.
I’ve got dozens of things that I’ve never attended on my account, but does it make a difference to me, nope and does anyone really care, I doubt it?
If it does and if anyone did see above.[/quote]
I quite agree. It was the inability of SMS to edit adult staff which made me doubt the original statement. If SMS were the deciding factor in insurance viability then the system would be absolutely unfit for purpose.
That will all become much more of an issue when they automate the claiming of pay by staff to their attendance at an activity as listed on SMS.
Then they’ll also need to consider those staff who don’t attend a full event (say a 3 or 4 day event), but pop in and out according to their availability… no real allowances for that in SMS… you’re either there, or your not. Or in GHE2s case; not there but there at the same time… in some kind of Schrodingeresque paradox.
Or if some of the staff are there for the advance party, etc…
Back to the issue of insurance, I’ll wait for Perry to weigh in on this with some genuine legalese, but I’d imagine that if the ACO tried to refuse a payout on the basis of a name’s being left off of the list that there’d be the possibility of quite a big lawsuit!
[quote=“MattB” post=10002]Or if some of the staff are there for the advance party, etc…
Back to the issue of insurance, I’ll wait for Perry to weigh in on this with some genuine legalese, but I’d imagine that if the ACO tried to refuse a payout on the basis of a name’s being left off of the list that there’d be the possibility of quite a big lawsuit![/quote]
humph, just because Perry’s ‘fully’ qualified…
But yes, big lawsuit. I thought I’d check here and see if anyone had seen a typically badly promulgated memo to the effect of what i was told.
(p.s. I didn’t mean to hit the report to a mod button, it’s directly above the quote button and i have big thumbs.)
Then they’ll also need to consider those staff who don’t attend a full event (say a 3 or 4 day event), but pop in and out according to their availability… no real allowances for that in SMS… you’re either there, or your not. Or in GHE2s case; not there but there at the same time… in some kind of Schrodingeresque paradox.[/quote]
There are times we have 2 two things at the same time in different places and as CO I will be at one to kick it off so to speak and then go to the other. OK these are normally ‘public events’ which don’t attract pay etc BUT nevertheless I attend both for less than the period of the event as listed. But I’ve attended a parade somewhere Saturday AM, gone home got into something more comfortable and gone off and done at AT weekend, getting there at lunctime. Again I am listed on staff for both.
BF’s situation of not being there for the whole multi day activity is something I feel we must all have done at some point.
I wonder why the staff lists aren’t able to be edited as the cadet one is? If the cadet one wasn’t we’d be stuffed as I put all cadets down on the initial application and edit once the activity has passed, given that cadet attendance is even more fickle than staff. Again this is due to admin ball ache in the early days of sms applications.
As for the automated pay etc, well it looks like someone has a requirement to get their finger out, if it’s going to be/cause that much hassle.
What I do find interesting is that we don’t seem to need to raise anything for flying, gliding and ‘annual camps’, which all attract pay etc.
[quote=“Baldrick” post=10004][quote=“MattB” post=10002]Or if some of the staff are there for the advance party, etc…
Back to the issue of insurance, I’ll wait for Perry to weigh in on this with some genuine legalese, but I’d imagine that if the ACO tried to refuse a payout on the basis of a name’s being left off of the list that there’d be the possibility of quite a big lawsuit![/quote]
humph, just because Perry’s ‘fully’ qualified…
But yes, big lawsuit. I thought I’d check here and see if anyone had seen a typically badly promulgated memo to the effect of what i was told.
(p.s. I didn’t mean to hit the report to a mod button, it’s directly above the quote button and i have big thumbs.)[/quote]Ah, does this mean you’re a half-qualified lawyer?
And to think I was starting to like you! 
i have been told this is because the event is approved based on the uploaded docs (RA, insurance, quals, etc) and the Staff names/numbers.
if the Staff side is available to be editted after approval it makes a joke of the approval as you can remove staff thus changing ratios or even the qualified staff member making the approval void yet it has been “granted” hence having it locked post approval
it makes sense to a point, but its not workable in the real world…
i have been told this is because the event is approved based on the uploaded docs (RA, insurance, quals, etc) and the Staff names/numbers.
if the Staff side is available to be editted after approval it makes a joke of the approval as you can remove staff thus changing ratios or even the qualified staff member making the approval void yet it has been “granted” hence having it locked post approval
it makes sense to a point, but its not workable in the real world…[/quote]
But no sense when you consider i can create an activity, say fieldctaft, ratio 1:4 at night. I can add more cadets as much as i like, but not the staff to cover the ratio. Personally, i don’t believe the list of names on an SMS app is relevant at all. What would be relevant in an investigation is who was on fact there in reality.