As a motorist do we all ignore signs for roundabouts and other roadsigns? It puts the emphasis back on the individual vehicle driver. If they are going to ignore a sign are they more likely to take instructions from a 13 year old?
Perhaps there is scope to look at a solution that is acceptable to all parties.
It would seem that RAFAC did not have an issue with cadets marshalling cars at events. On the other hand, @Cab clearly did.
There were significant positive areas involved in car marshalling, such as interaction / engagement with the public, team leadership building (cadet NCOs / SNCOs & their groups of cadets - staff supervision overall of course), visibility of cadets to the public & the financial income that sqns could benefit from.
There did not seem to be evidential material to show that cadets had been injured conducting marshalling. However, from the risk point of view, perhaps there was not a âstandardâ approach to ensure that the activity would be ALARP & therefore acceptable.
We have standard briefs / guidance / risk assessments for many RAFAC activities - in areas that are certainly more âhazardousâ than car marshalling.
So, how about something that suits this activity?
Just as a discussion point and not taking sides, if we need evidence to support a stop notice, that would require someone getting injured to start off with! I am sure noone wants or implied this.
Would evidence of a hazard analysis / risk assessment be better?
1 Like
Whatever it needs to look at the options for return to car marshalling by cadets - to be acceptable to all concerned.
Uniforms, high viz jackets, and an appearance of responsibility are a powerful thing. Also, most people understand the accepted social norm of following where youâre pointed towards by a marshall.
Then thereâs the audience effect of simply being watched affecting behaviour in many, especially coupled with the known social norm of event parking.
6 Likes
At present time itâs stopped & is unlikely to return in the next three years.
So letâs flip the thought experiment around a little.
Imagine we are a brand new cadet force and we have never done car parking & itâs never been approved or even considered.
What would need to be looked at in the business case for the activity to go ahead?
How do you implement & risk assess the safe system of training in the activity.
What would a PESTLE SWOT look like as part of the business case.
If you want a glimmer of a hope of being able to do again in the future then you would need to jump through theses hoops.
I do remember that the ATC use to be banned from doing Arms drill by RAF/HQ policy despite their being a push for it for several years.
It came to a head where the other cadet forces were doing & a minister asked why the air cadets couldnât do it. The then CAS got told it was a rubbish blocking reason & to make it happen.
Youâve just got to build the portfolio of evidence up.
2 Likes
Surely our history of incidents in this type of activity is part of the evidence either way though. We shouldnât discount it.
Now thereâs an idea 
1 Like
Not necessarily.
History of incidents (if there is one) could lead to confirmation bias.
Lack of history of incidents could lead to survivorship bias.
Youâve got to build up the political perception first.
So
-take photos of the other cadet forces doing the car parking
- share their media posts.
- thank the other cadet forces for stepping in after you could no longer cover it after an âamendment to policyâ
- share that.
You need to Make it organisational embarrassing whilst (this is the key bit) remaining respectful AND without passing fault or criticism of persons, positions or the organisation.
If you really want it back then you need to start from scratch as if itâs a new activity thatâs never been done before.
1 Like
We shouldnât be looking at a business case, we arenât a commercial organisation. What makes the activity safe to participate
Therre are many activities where the risk is briefed (classroom) / elsewhere & then monitored / guidance given under supervision whilst the activity progresses. We donât need a Car Marshalling trg person, just the makings of suitable risk assessment /briefing / guidance / supervision material.
Other youth organisations marshall cars at events. What are their supervisory / control aspects?
1 Like
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?