As a point of information, whilst the post in question is a bit combative/glib the term âballsâ (whilst vulgar) has not been regarded a gendered term since the late 90s/early 2000s
A person may consider that they have âballsâ regardless of gender & its use should not be used to assume it applies to a single gender. Nor should we assume that someone of a particular gender has or has not âballsâ
A colleague (non-military) received a written warning for a similar comment.
Just throwing this in here as otherwise the topic is likely to keep circling around.
The decision has been made - it is not going to be changed because of comments in a web forum.
Even more so the only way the decision will change is with evidence & rationale in a business case evidencing that it can be delivered correctly & safely.
Itâs frustrating, it makes people angry but in order to move forward & to stand any chance of the activity (the pausing of which I am in agreement with) being reapproved the debate needs to be progressed through the admin process
You canât beat the system but you can use the system to best itself.
If I may, I agree with your general perspective regarding change and change management. The clear difference here is that I am (I hope) clearly willing to engage and discuss as my way of smoothing the change curve.
I will also reiterate my previous comments ie it is ok to disagreeâŚit really is. I am also very willing to hear differences of opinion. Thatâs how we grow.
What was hard was dealing with it at the sharp end, ringing up local events at the last minute and letting them down. Cancelling activities because units now couldnât afford them.
At least you then followed up your decision with an explanatory brief and an apology for appreciating that the impact of your decision would cause hardship.
This shows a clear lack of empathy for and awareness of the work we do as CFAVs, and itâs pretty disappointing (but not surprising) to see. Genuine question: do you or the Comdt risk assess the ability for the organisation to continue to deliver activities at the scale and quality we do now in the future? And if so, where does the risk of low CFAV morale fit into that?
For what itâs worth, I find it quite funny that you are, in your words, âone of the most experienced risk practitioners in the RAFâ yet you are unable to mitigate the risks of an activity such as this one that has been deemed acceptable to previous AOCs, has a low accident record, is undertaken by similar organisation etc.
The money is important and with less being supplied by the system than ever before it will become more important going forward. However, it is also about community engagement. Really important that We are seen in the community and not just by potential cadets but also by the local great and the good. I have been involved with the ATC for 40 years supported lots of events and never come close to an accident or incident. I still donât understand why we have all been tarred with a brush where one unit was not up to standard. A pilot does something wrong he is grounded spoken to and if necessary retrained. Why are we all permanently grounded?
With all due respect sir, and not telling you how to do your job but if you could nail this in the remainder of your tenure, im pretty confident the RAFAC would be set up for success. Like ive hinted at i do change management in multi million pound organisations for my day job and the way the organisation approaches it is nothing but frustrating, and no where near what one would call industry or best practice (probably the military way of doing things though) couple that with no clear communication strategy in the organisation it all comes across as knee jerk reactionsâŚmaybe this is the root cause of FOIs against the org? The collective We need to do the basic things better as change impacts everyone and everyone has a part to play.
Lets take parking for example it was delivered to the organisation as just stop it, as no part of that there was no scene setting, no reason for change it was just delivered to the volunteers as a simple no. To put it simply we dont communicate the reason and why for change properly to get buy in.
Albeit i have questioned for sometime on the morality of kids being used to marshall cars, but thats me and maybe rightly or wrongly, i just accepted it because weve done it for 40+ years
By the nature of the organisation not every one will be up for change but we arent helping ourselves in setting that change up for success and embedding the change.
The worst part of this is the reliance on this forum to suggest ideas and vent, because if you try and use the chain of command theres so much resistance and even instances of disciplinary action fot even suggesting changeâŚand im 99.9% sure members of this org will back me up on that very bold statemeny. We need to really look at communication channels both upwards and downwards and really apply a RACI model against. Because its a series of empires layered on top of one another with no form of cohesion between them.
But alas, this org isnt my trainset.
Hopefully this post doesnt come across as wingey and moaney but ive tried to remain constructive, balanced and suggest bigger picture solutions rather than moaning that we cant do car parking anymore.
If you want to discuss further and unlike the majority of this forum i dont hide behind an alias so have nothing to hide or loose so drop me an email and im willing to engage, support and provide an insights to help drive this org forwards.
Several people have asked for the objective evidence-based processes as to why car marshalling is seen as dangerous, & just as importantly, what processes could be introduced so that the assessed risk can be brought down to what is seen as ALARP / acceptable.
Iâm just commenting to second everything youâve said here. As you know, Iâve also been highly experienced in risk management and know what Iâm seeing despite so-called assurance that a risk owner isnât attempt to eliminate a risk rather than reduce it to ALARP.
The general theme that I find from Cabâs comments are that risk management in the civilian world isnât conducted the right way, in his opinion.
What the comments do suggest is something many of us have stated on here over the past few years quite a number of times; senior leaders responsible for RAFAC, for whatever reason, forget that weâre SMEs in the civilian world. We know when weâre witnessing âmale cow excrementâ
The Hollywood depiction of a highly decorated senior fighter pilot in the twilight of their career: Surviving against the odds flying suicide missions to prevent rogue states becoming nuclear-capable.
The reality: having to spend your Saturday evening bogged down on an internet forum in a to-do with naffed off volunteers about risk-assessing car parking duties, against the back drop of government cuts.
I donât think this is going to inspire a script for another Top Gun sequel, unless maybe they get Ken Loach to direct it (âTop Gun III- I, Pete Mitchellâ perhaps?)
The money is an issue for sure. But itâs the implementation, the lack of empathy, the knock on impact to reputation and relationships and if youâre in the south west, the fact you might have renegotiated a role with no car parking only for a week later to have to pull out completely. Itâs the embarrassment that those making these decisions donât have to deal with and never will, but foist upon the mere mortals having to enact their whims. That is why there are 430+ posts.
But it isnât going to change, so explain the reason (even as simple as policy change - donât need to go in-depth) and say we do want to help, what other areas do you need assistance in.
Just because you canât do car parking doesnât mean you canât still help at the event. See my earlier post about what we did to switch (although it was 2018 as staff we choose to stop car parking.
It was never about the money for me.
Whatâs got my back up is the fact that we are now at a point, in this diminishing organisation, were one person can wake up and think, âThat activity seems a little bit risky to me, Iâd better pop into the office and ban it.â
No proper assessment, no consultationâŚjust ban it.
Gone in the blink of an eye and the click of the fingers. Never coming back. That easy.
I will be less frustrated and critical when somebody in the senior management wakes up one day and, instead of adding to the banned list, does something tangible that will result in the return of the following;
Parachuting
Motor Gliders
Air Cadet Pilot Navigation Training Scheme
Air Cadet AEF Course
Air Operations Acquaintance Center
AEF progression through sorties 1-6
Regional Aerospace Courses
BTEC in Aerospace Studies
Sir Michael Knight pilot scholarship
Crab football
Paragliding
The LSW
Outdoors drone flying
Aircraft recognition
Nitex at local country park.
Assault courses
Microflight flying
Popular Flying Association Rallies - where cadets could get seriously close to aircraft by marshalling on the taxiways.
