On the contrary. When I get to the top, everything will be unbanned, there will be more of it, and all activities will be slightly more dangerous. Iāll even have a motto for this new riskier and fun RAFAC. It will be āVenture Adventure Againā!
In all seriousness, Iām sitting here typing, looking at my book shelf and the one book that I canāt stop looking at is āThe Dangerous Book for Boysā by Gonn & Hal Iggulden. Growing up, I loved reading this book and trying out most of the stuff inside. Thereās probably not a single thing in it that HQAC would allow now.
Itās not my FOI, but I donāt really disagree with it. They seem to be the only way we actually find our whatās going onā¦
Itās been said many times before, people are putting in FOIs as their questions are not being answered any other way. More transparency will equate to less FOIs.
Didnt think it was you foi, sorry if it came across that way. Probably geographical, i simply ask WExO and got that answer, guess so e wings ate so easy. Its a vicious circle, which could be broken with expedient initial comms
So your WExO told what isnāt a reason for the ban? That still doesnāt tell anyone what actually IS the reason and ignores that it shouldnāt be necessary to request additional information on a matter such as this.
Correct, and thatās the point being made here and on the SWR thread. When announcing something, offer your justification and consider what questions might be asked so you can head them off by including those details.
You have missed it, reason was not as a result of any incidents (hence waste of time asking for evidence of any incidents), itās purely that those at the top dont want any risk no matter how trivial so they said stop it. We may not like it but going around the same perverbial circle wont change it, just makes people look like spoilt 5 year olds who have had their toys taken away. So unless anyone can actually come up with another exopaination which originated from CAB or his direct chain of command, and not via any SM sites ( although Peps entry was rather good) then i have no reason to doubt WExO explaination.
I disagree, having that evidence makes requesting the justification a stronger position to hold.
If the argument is safety, we now have an amount of evidence that suggests to us that the activity isnāt as unsafe as we would consider warranting a ban. Also that we are potentially an outlier by banning this activity.
Therefore, what is the actual reasoning and evidence used during the decision making process?
We will have to agree to disagree as FOIs just take up scarce resources, the simple fix would be for his original email to be sent to all OCs then no need for lots of other bitty comms.Whilst people keep putting reasonable arguememts to prove the activity LOW risk, if they bother to listen to the actualy requirement the CAB wants NO risk and the only way of doing that is stopping the activity.
My gibe is aboutvthe timing as this should have been thought about before xmas. There we could plan ahead. No doubt there is going to be a further lists of stopped activities so hopefully we will get told well in advance (I am expected to be proved wrong). Any all the griping, producing evidence etc in the world isnt going to change thingās so will have to try and find what we can do when oir blessed region let usboutcto play again.
So youāre saying that if decision and policy making was more transparent then there would be fewer FOI requests which would save resources.
And we know that CFAV have been asked not to put in FOI requests because it takes up HQAC resources.
Yet we continue to receive information and policies in forms that do not provide the detail that would prevent FOI requests.
Weāre not actually on different sides here. We both want fewer FOI requests and recognise that more transparency could provide this.
Thereās no such thing as no risk and the guiding principle of risk assessing is ALARP.
ā¦ Shutting down the organisation.
An individualās gut feeling or not liking something is not a risk assessment. Thatās pure bias. Shutting something down without reasonable and tangible evidence (or rather: not presenting it if you have it) is bound to generate questions and challenges.
One reason the RAF wanted to get rid of VR(T) was to get rid of the admin burden and dealing with the Civis in Uniform (Volunteers) who did things their way not military and what suited them when and when they choose. All these FOI is surely highlighting to MOD and Air Command that the Civis of the RAFAC are causing a huge admin burden, with cuts across CS, MOD and RAF, whats a good way to reduce that admin burdenā¦what happend to VR(T)!? Just a hypothesis but I would be thinking get rid of that so there is no need to ask a FOI as it donāt exist.
