I appreciate that, and Iâm not a safety professional, but arenât incident rates part of how you derive likelihood values to inform risk assessments?
Proposal paper then but everythingâs a business in one shape or another so if you want the activity back you need to put a document together in a format that the receptor at is familiar with,
So as there (allegedly) no incidents, then there is no risk. That cannot be true. Learning from previous incidents is only part of the safety case, there is also the what ifs, what cans, why ares then risk over reward.
That said if a sqep or consultancy carried out a full review and additional measures implemented then surely an informed decision can be made, which is what every is elluding to (i think) Remembering an informed decision could still = No.
True, but we wouldnât just use our own data to underpin it, weâd have to look at other people who do the same activity. I also did only say âpart ofâ 
Correct.
however - it does indicate that the risks that are present are âwell controlledâ to make them not only ALARP but low enough nothing has happened.
No one (i think) is suggest marshalling traffic is ârisk freeâ - but evidence indicates that the risks that are present are controlled easily enough that the risk are low.
low risk does not = no risk
but low risk can = no injury
Itâs not acceptable to me. Just once more in an attempt to move the eye elsewhere, untrained children will not be used for this activity. The risk is not ALARP and tolerable with this being my personal judgement as I hold the risk personally. Untrained children with no awareness of how motor vehicles work. Untrained children.
Find alternative methods of engagement with the local community and I am pleased to a see a reasoned consideration of this on this thread.
1 Like
You cant say that, low riak may reduce severity of injury but nothing in life is totally risk/injury free.
Also if people (cadets or adults) are untrained how do you define the risk as low. Even the adults on organisations who get paid to do car parking type activities have some basic level of professional training.
Great point.
1 Like
note i said âcanâ i have not said âlow risk = no injuryâ
i agree with your comments completely but please do not suggest am indicating low risk = no injury
this all depends on the definition of âtrainingâ - if you look into these courses they are more for covering the person taking responsibilities backside/a condition upon the insurance or in the RA than a recognised qualification to add to a CV - many completely in a couple of hours, and even online, it is a tick box exercise rather than diploma certificate to pin up on the wall of the downstairs toilet
As you say yourself âbasic levelâ
My point being - the training is not rocket science and can be easily identified by the lay man on the street - or indeed a CFAV and thus can deliver this to cadets
(FYI I have looked into this with an RBL hat on to consider what is required for traffic marshals for a parade, having seen the course content* there was nothing in the course that could not be covered in a 10-15 minute chat - but the courses are padded out to fill time, justify the course, and indeed the course fee so those attending walk away with a piece of paper which satisfies the insurer
*Online training course ÂŁ40, certificate the same day and ID card included - check out the course content, all of this is already covered in a brief offered by CFAV to the Cadets and/or covered in the RAFAC and event RA
What about this one High Speed Training it even comes with City&Guilds assurance)
1 Like
implying that âtrained childrenâ can be used?
Shhhh!!! 
Thatâs the loophole for three years time or if it all kicks of with Russia 
Ok noted, using same arguement, high risk can also be injury free, which then leads to reward over risk discussion, plus lots more mitigation factors which the greater costs should be offset with a greater benefit. I think we all acknowledge the financial losses of not doing carvparkimg, hence in hindsight more notice would have been beneficial.
Ultimately it is up to the accountable person to decide what their minimum level of acceptance and assurance is,
The overall tolerance of risks will be different between over 18s (possibly paid)persons who are also accountable for their own safety ( and others) and u18s who may lack maturity and experience and whilst they should be aware of their own safety (and others) they are not legally accountable.
And yet, they appear to be at RAF Benson. Just as long as they wear a scout uniform and not a blue one?
11 Likes
Who holds the risk there I wonder? Is it the Station Commander? Is it the Scouts? Is it an AOC?
3 Likes
Itâs says âmarshallingâ, but do we know if itâs vehicles or just people?
Just had a thought - could 16 & 17 year old regular RAF AS1 or AS2s be used in car parking/marshalling duties?
If so which AOC would hold that risk?
4 Likes
Yep, I agree with your point - we donât definitely know (or I donât) Iâm drawing an inference as mostly these type of events tend to include a car parking aspect. If they arenât doing that at Benson then fair enough and I shall wind my neck back in 
these are critical questions.
Signing off SMS events, it appears âlegalâ in the wording of what are âsigningâ off - as the event IC, a Sqn CFAV, not necessarily the Sqn OC.
Certain events capture the interest of a Wing SME or Wg Cdr.
And likewise at Rgn tooâŚ
Where does the buck ultimately lie?
If as a for instance a Sqn approved (ie by the OC) event leads to an incident, which ends up in court is it the Sqn OC, the Wing OC or AOC 22 Grp who is the dock?
Surely the last person signing the event off is the one âresponsibleâ and liable. Else, how does AOC 22 Grp sleep at night knowing there are dozens of events his RAF CFAV Wing Cdrs donât even see are occurring every week which he is âultimately responsible forâ?
1 Like
I sleep well TYâŚbecause I understand risk and the associated processes. I also trust my personnel and know that we donât always get things right or, indeed, risks can materialise. Thatâs risk management.
1 Like
So is there instead a possibility of a conversation around how we can build specific processes and training to be able to extend that trust to vehicle marshalling as an activity, as opposed to a permanent ban?
So far, under the absence of specific training, the organisation has managed to avoid incident. So perhaps there is then scope to use that positive reality in substandard circumstances as a base to formalise a best practice package that ensures this remains the case with greater confidence?
6 Likes