[quote=“steve679” post=10008]
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.[/quote]
If this is true it shows a complete lack of trust in us. Nothing new then.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=10028][quote=“steve679” post=10008]
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.[/quote]
If this is true it shows a complete lack of trust in us. Nothing new then.[/quote]
Trouble is there are staff members out there who would do exactly that and then argue it wasn’t their fault as they had got it all approve so nothing to do with them etc.
The organisation doesn’t at the mo (or at least I haven’t heard of it) ring us up and double check we are conducting the activity how we told them we would so I wouldn’t say there is a lack (at least overtly) trust.
The plan for the activity is what is authorized and in the event of an incident we have to supply the justification for any deviation from the plan.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=10053]The organisation doesn’t at the mo (or at least I haven’t heard of it) ring us up and double check we are conducting the activity how we told them we would so I wouldn’t say there is a lack (at least overtly) trust.
The plan for the activity is what is authorized and in the event of an incident we have to supply the justification for any deviation from the plan.[/quote]
As far as I can tell it’s not the plan and what we do that’s the issue, as this can change for any number of reasons as we and anyone with the slightest experience in the Corps will know. It’s having the flexibility to alter staff lists to ensure the right ratios are maintained and the people actually attending are listed, without having to get into OTT admin tasks.
For whatever reason it always seems to be that the expectation is that people are going to do things that are “in excess” when changes are made, when in my experience you go for the easy life.
If as the CO putting forward for authorisation and you knowlingly sanction an activity when the person with the qualification isn’t going to be there, then expect the poo to hit the fan, if it goes wrong. I’ve been on weekends where we have advertised something and the person qualified has had to go home/can’t mke it for any number of reasons and the activity is pulled. Cadets are miffed but that’s life. The plan is then altered on spec to fit what we know we can do.
[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]
You called?
Yes utter tosh.
Surely more staff = safer activity as there are more supervisory staff?
Also (as I’ve said before) the MOD doesn’t really “insure” as such, in the same way Direct Line or Aviva do. They’re self insured and coff up out of central funds where a liability arises.
The simple question is, are the staff on approved ACO duty? Yes they are, therefore no wriggle room for MOD.
I have some Jnr cadets that are now 1st class but I can’t change their classification on SMS like I can for other cadets for leading etc, see attachment.
I have some Jnr cadets that are now 1st class but I can’t change their classification on SMS like I can for other cadets for leading etc, see attachment.
Does anyone know how I can do this please?[/quote]
I’ve seen a situation like this when the cadet has not yet been marked as enrolled on the system prior to marking them as complete for part 1. In that case it popped up a warning message.
That was a while ago though and the behaviour might have changed in the recent SMS update.
Question on this matter if someone could answer, what is the rules regards screenshots of activity pages (excluding the cadet names one) regarding sensitivity as i note there is nothing that says it is restricted or sensitve.
I heard over the weekend that in order to support electronic remuneration as part of the Admin Process Management Team, SMS is going to rebuilt from the ground up… and that this will support changing staff attendance.
There should be an announcement regarding this in April
For this there are two scenarios : chaos as the changes are drip fed and things changing constantly OR chaos with one big change which won’t be tested beforehand and then have to be withdrawn as it doesn’t work.
