STOP 🛑 Car Parking

[Cadet04]

Don’t give them ideas

[tingger]

Strange that the AOC would clamp down on an activity on a gut feeling. Its been hammered into me from on high that he’s completly evidence led, as he required 9 months of data to restart another activity he’d clamped down on.

But maybe it’s one way evidence

[Chief_Tech]

@tingger

Strange that the AOC would clamp down on an activity on a gut feeling.

I think it’s more to do with this bit

@steve679

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

Key words

• several times
• safety meetings

By the sound of it AOC had raised the concern several times & reading between the lines something came up when he thought he had given an instruction for something to be weened off.

It still hadn’t he was being ignored so he pulled the plug. I think most leaders have been in this situation once or twice.

The easy early snap response from HQ should have been to make car parking something that required RC or HQ approval & would have reduced events down a lot or certainly added longer planning submissions so expectations could be managed in the event of refusal.

This should have been done at the first meeting it was raised with CaC & not left to fester.

[Cadet04]

Not sure I agree. “I simply do not tolerate the risk of our youngsters being used as vehicles marshals” doesn’t sound like he’d be open to mitigation. But this is speculation after all.

Funny the FOI redacted the bit that would remove some speculation as “release would
constitute an actionable breach of confidence”. Not sure that would hold up on internal review.

[JoeBloggs]

@Cadet04

Funny the FOI redacted the bit that would remove some speculation as

What I am most amazed by is the lack of redaction for AOC 22 Gps name and details. Normally the RAF data team go over the top with removing all of this data, and you have to try and work it out based on the layout of the email signature.

If I had my tinfoil hat on, this has been published with that data intact to help protect HQAC, and ‘prove’ that this wasn’t their doing. But of course I don’t do conspiracies…

[Cadet04]

I think they usually don’t redact Air Officer’s names/ranks in things like this?

[VirtualRealityTrooper]

I really don’t think an AVM and possibly even an AM are going to give two hoots what any CFAVs are going to think. As mentioned in several posts, the real RAF follow orders without challenge. TK did as he was ordered and is not entitled to challenge. The blunt tone of the e-mail suggests that maybe he has challenged it and this time around the AVM made it very clear.

[WellIbedammed]

Im SW it was stated from the start that it was from an AVM and not HQAC, it trickle down comms that was the issue.

[JoeBloggs]

@WellIbedammed

it trickle down comms that was the issue.

Classic.

[WellIbedammed]

@steve679

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

How do you know they didnt? End of the day top rank has given a command and everyone follows, if you want question every order then maybe military style management is not for you

[WellIbedammed]

@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.

So when you get to the top we will be able to do car parking but no aef, camps or coach journeys

[pEp]

Arguably military style management isn’t really appropriate for a youth club run by volunteers, but ho-hum each to their own.

[WellIbedammed]

I agree to an extent, however the clue is in the name. Whilst we are RAFAC the senior officers rule the roost which isnt negotiable. If they work on the comms most will be more accepting. Unfortunately there will be some who will keep sulking when their trains are removed from soneone elses train set.

[Giminion]

@WellIbedammed

End of the day top rank has given a command and everyone follows,

Don’t know about this. Is the RAF still running with their disruptive thinking initiative?

[bob]

Not totally true, an order has to be lawful, which the RAF under Winston found out to their cost.

[WellIbedammed]

Unfortunately a few cant tell the difference between unlawful and unpopular ,( my original statement was on basis on a lawful order, fortunately i have yet to receive an u lawful orde but there’s still time

[WellIbedammed]

Onlyvto those who think that theyvcan do what they want with no accountability to their peers

[Giminion]

Qué and another qué for the minimum character limit?

[Turbo]

@Chief_Tech

By the sound of it AOC had raised the concern several times & reading between the lines something came up when he thought he had given an instruction for something to be weened off.

It still hadn’t he was being ignored so he pulled the plug. I think most leaders have been in this situation once or twice.

I wonder if it was ignored by the - already overzealous when it comes to safety - HQAC because it is the most stupid decision the RAF has ever made, (apart from the recent illegal recruitment policy)?

[Chief_Tech]

@Turbo

wonder if it was ignored by the - already overzealous when it comes to safety - HQAC because it is the most stupid decision the RAF has ever made

more likely it’s that the activity was on the list of MoD indemnified activities that the AOC does not have the authority to amend as it’s a Whitehall /director of reserve forces & cadets decision.