Interesting language. I would argue that the FOI requests are a symptom of appalling communication. So actually it just proves the volunteers in this organisation wonât just be fobbed off, but will use whatever tools are available to it to try and get answers on what is going on.
If that means an admin burden, for this type of complaint, is simply diverted from military complaints to FOI requests then the organisation made an error of judgement.
There was a time when we were referred to as the RAFs Light Blue Footprint; capable, able, skilled and reliable enough that we are able to reach out into communities, acting as ambassadors for the RAF and keeping it in the Public eyes.
These days it feels increasingly like weâre the RAFs Light Blue Liability - no longer trusted, no longer capable and no longer proficiently skilled to the âMoD/RAF standardsâ.
If a commercial company had to face such in-depth internal enquiries about governance, operations, communication, HR aspects, transparency, etc, etc, the CEO / Board of Directors would be facing a very unhappy group of share holders. Undoubtedly, there would be career-changing ramifications.
As a reasonable comparison, CFAVs are effectively share holders of RAFACâŚ
Agree, now seeing scouts etc taking over events RAFAC use to do, they are no different they still have duty of care, they are coved by the organisation PLI.
It takes a brave man to say 18 year old cadets arenât safe to stand in a field and point in the direction they want a car to travel at a relatively slow speed, and then, a fortnight later, say itâs perfectly fine for 18 year old cadets to fly a short final over the A1 dual carriagewayâŚat 222kphâŚon their own!
Pedant mode: 222km/ph is 120 kts, a bloody fast final!
Any difference for a 16yr old to be flying a Viking glider at 100-120 knots during a solo after only 4 days of training? 
*Edit misread kph for mph #Doh
I know, but itâs perfectly feasible with a panicking cadet at the controls. Thatâs my point. This is ok, but car marshalling is far more dangerous apparently.
Fair point. Car comes this way, you stand here and you point that way DO NOT STEP IN FRONT OF MOVING CARâŚBrief over 
You totallyvdont getcthe point, flying core activity, alarp is good, car parking/marshalking not a core activity alarp not wanted so stop. Urs not about the risks, its about the reward / liability.
The reward is that it pays for squadrons to do the fun stuff.
Why are you such a HQAC apologist for this?
There are lots of things that arenât core activities that arenât stopped.
Many of those that arenât stopped donât happen to be the source of ÂŁ1000s of funding and feed into broader PR strategies.
Not sure thatâs quite the best way to phrase that.
The liability is that if something goes wrong tye mod pay for it, so from their pov they get nothing out of it i am not apologising just trying to put things from both directions. The solution would be a seperate indemnity insurance.
Well i am sure car parking/marshalling wont be the last stoppage ( doesnt mean i agree with it though)
Not if itâs covered by the event PLI, which it should be.
But this leads us to the conundrum of do we challenge everything or accept what we donât like?
If this slippery slope isnât a fallacy, then where is the line drawn?
We havenât done vehicle marshalling for a very long time, so this doesnât affect us, but that doesnât mean I canât support a challenge on behalf of others.
Taking that argument what do they get out of anything the Corps does?
May as well sack the whole thing off and recruit from other youth organisations instead.
Surely thatâs what the PLI from the organiser is for? Also as stated there havenât been any incidents so the risk management is being led by any data.
Totally agree, so stumped why isnt an option
Point one agree, point two, just my cynism, hopefully i am wrong