STOP 🛑 Car Parking

[WellIbedammed]

First thing insurance companies say to drivers is dont take responsibility, where theres blame theres a claim etc, but you are right drivers should just accept marshalling as just that, ie. I am pointing at a space , i am not telling you to stop 1mm from other car

[daws1159]

@WellIbedammed

Either way the doors are definitely shut and bolted and would not expect a reversal ofcthe decisions, and no dpubt other activities now be looked atcin the same way.

No need to worry about the money the activities, killing off cad parking means their won’t be much money to do anything else anyway.

[steve679]

agreed - of the two people (the driver operating the vehicle controls and the person marshalling traffic) it is a no brainer which would be considered responsible should a vehicle hit an object (be that another vehicle, person or other…)

[MikeJenvey]

@JoeBloggs

e IBN clearly states that it will be removed from ACP300/ACTO10 so we will not be allowed to do it, forever.

Yep, & this WILL include CFAVs - current Wg guidances is that CFAVs should stop car parking / marshalling.

[bob1]

Ultimately the same issue, we’re under the same MOD indemnity as the Cadets.

[JoeBloggs]

The wording as it stands very clearly says ‘by cadets’. So I’d say this is wrong, based on the IBN.

@kitkat

EXACT words

CADET CAR PARK MARSHALLING BY CADETS

Issue

Car Park Marshalling by Cadets.

Key points

• Car Park Marshalling by Cadets is to cease with immediate effect.

Background
Although current policy may allow car park marshalling by cadets as a mechanism for charity fundraising this has to be assessed against any risk to cadets and car park users that may arise.

Having reassessed the risks to young people when engaging in such activities and the potential for wider MOD liabilities to arise it has been determined that the risks are not to be tolerated.

ACP300 and ACTO 10, will be amended to reflect this clarified position.

My bolds.

The IBN is literally all we have. So that’s all we can go by. There is nothing to suggest this change effects CFAVs.

@bob1

we’re under the same MOD indemnity as the Cadets.

Although true, we are adults, not cadets, and there are things we’re allowed to do that cadets are not. If you go through the ACP 300 list of activities covered, there are quite a few that state CFAV only. ACTO 10 reflects this, but that is not surprising as the data is shared.

[MikeJenvey]

@JoeBloggs

So I’d say this is wrong, based on the IBN.

As per Wg CoS email today…

[papa_november]

@JoeBloggs

The IBN is literally all we have. So that’s all we can go by. There is nothing to suggest this change effects CFAVs.

Had it via email today from CoS HQ C&E that CFAV are included in the stop order; specifically “Therefore CFAV are not to conduct vehicle marshalling”.

[JoeBloggs]

So the only information we have, an IBN less than a page with about 4 sentences, is fundamentally incorrect? Wow.

[daws1159]

His email says that he has asked for a new IBN to make it clear.

[JoeBloggs]

[alycidon]

Feel for you, but talk to the orgnisers of the events, there may be other roles that the cadets can fill. As I understand it Civ Com members cannot do the car parking aspect either.

A

[JoeBloggs]

20240724%20FOI2024%2011866%20Annex%20A%20Final.pdf

There you have it. This was a direct order from AOC 22 group, seemingly with no actual risk assessing done by any kind of professionals. Just AOC saying I don’t like it, so stop it.

I can understand now why RC North/HQ didn’t want to comment until this came out. This was not HQ at all, and this FOI proves that.

Absolutely no thought at all for pre-planned activities. An absolute joke. But not HQs fault here.

[Baldrick]

So why not just be honest with the organisation about it?

I’m less annoyed about the stop than I am about the way it was yet again communicated in a peepee poor fashion.

[steve679]

@JoeBloggs

But not HQs fault here.

it could (should) be argued that it is their fault for not pushing back.

The trouble being as HQAC is “RAF” they never question an order/instruction or highlight the implications on enforcing it.
they simple accept the word from above and share it below.

HQAC should be fighting the Squadron/volunteer corner more - if only to make the executive decision to delay the stop “wef 1st Month there will be no more traffic marshalling events approved until further notice” but i get the impression no one in the ivory towers has any appetite to stir up resistance or be seen as a trouble maker but questioning their seniors

[JoeBloggs]

I agree they should push back, but the second suggestion is tricky.

@steve679

if only to make the executive decision to delay the stop “wef 1st Month there will be no more traffic marshalling events approved until further notice”

That’s a dangerous game to play. Acknowledging there is a potential safety risk but not acting on it straight away. If something happened in that time, you’d have no way to fight it.

The interesting bit here actually is “as I have stated several times at our safety meetings that cadets are not to be involved in such activities.”. So, arguably, HQ already knew this was something that needed to be looked into, but ignored it. Until such a time they were told directly to stop.

[steve679]

reading the FOI it is interesting that the evidence indicates:

…stated severaltimes at our safety meetings that cadets are not to be involved in such activities

which suggests to me this “ban” was a long time coming but HQAC kept ignoring it?

edit: @JoeBloggs beat me to it…

@JoeBloggs

potential safety risk

but how potential is that risk?

this decision was based on one persons view, and not some significant or even light touch study or investigation. while there is risk, there is no evidence anyone came to any harm from that risk

[JoeBloggs]

By biggest annoyance/gripe I guess is that a single individual can completely ban an activity based purely on their gut feeling. I get that he is AOC 22 group, so what he says goes.

But: “I simply do not tolerate the risk of our youngsters being used as vehicles marshals” is not an evidence based decision. It should surely be “I think this is risky, can we assess it at a top level then make a decision.”

I think there is another FOI asking for how many car-related incidents there have been. I guess the answer will be less than the number of drill/ceremonial incidents. But we’re not banning that, yet.

[bob1]

@JoeBloggs

But: “I simply do not tolerate the risk of our youngsters being used as vehicles marshals” is not an evidence based decision. It should surely be “I think this is risky, can we assess it at a top level then make a decision.”

Welcome to the military way of thinking… also see Regional Commandants for making decisions based on gut not evidence.

[Turbo]

Zero deaths from car parking = Ban it.

Deaths from AEF flying = Keep it.
Death from coach transport = Keep it.
Death on camp = Keep it.