Safetyism and itās consequences have been a disaster for the country
2 Likes
That applies to the vast majority of what we do.
2 Likes
Really!! One minute we all want to be part of the RAF whilst on the other hand we criticise the orders from an Air Commodore, question those of an AVM and now want to raise it with an AM!!??
Get a grip people! Stick our head back behind the parapet and move on!
nope, i want to be part of the RAFAC. No one can issue me an order since they took my reserves commission.
8 Likes
āYes menā have no place in the armed forces or cadet forces
Apologies for the unnecessary gendered language
5 Likes
The Group Captain who resigned over employment discrimination should be applauded by everyone.
4 Likes
In the Armed Forces those giving out orders are trained and there are sever consequences to those who fail to follow orders. (Iām sure Cab has sufficient risk assessment training!)
An AVM has given an order to an AC who has disseminated down to Volunteers who by āwearing the uniformā are obliged to follow the rules or face the consequences.
1 Like
Youāre talking rubbish.
3 Likes
Point of information
The use of the word āvolunteerā means that there is no obligation.
As volunteers we cannot give or be given lawful orders.
We canon the other hand receive āreasonable management instructionsā however the person who decides whether the instruction is the one who decides & has to justify the reasonableness.
Whilst it might seem counterintuitive to a military organisation it is a necessary safe guard for any organisation that deals with children & safeguarding matters.
2 Likes
So an AVM giving an order to a Group Captain to act contrary to law is a legal order then, same as anybody has the obligation to refuse such an order. The Nuremberg defence does not work.
to counter this, drivers of vehicles at events where car parking/marshalling takes place are also undertaken by skilled, trained and qualified drivers who have undergone testing - ie they are legal drivers.
of the two people in the equation of car vs marshal, the one with the most damage potential, the car, is operated by a qualified driver, while the one with least damage potential, the marshal waving an arm is āuntrainedā (ie without a qualification*). that is the correct way around.
there seems to be an automatic assumption that drivers of cars are incapable of stopping an incident happening, and the only control measure to stop any incident happening is a 13 year child forgetting of course a qualified driver likely to be at least twice the age of the marshal isnāt going to be looking to cause an incident, and is as keen to prevent it (if not more so given personal property) as the marshal
*see my comments above about qualifications though, these are tick box exercises in some cases can be done at home as an online course. the course content is easily considered by a CFAV and briefed accordingly and doesnāt need 2 hours to complete.
1 Like
But you choose to be part of that organisation so you are obligated to follow the rules of that organisation.
1 Like
Yeap, we should all have signed the Volunteer agreementā¦
1 Like
Only if the rules and instructions are ālegalā
He may well do, but no assessment has been presented to underpin the decision.
There should be systems in place for us to challenge decisions we disagree with. As soon as we start adopting a āroll over and take itā attitude then the organisation is never going to be what we want it to be.
2 Likes
But WE have no control over that persons quality of driving, unlike an RAF Pilot.
ā¦and is most at risk of being damaged.
on wet/damp grass with road tyres
and will be prosecuted if they were deemed to be driving dangerously or without due care and attention when they hit the 13 year old who is now worse for wear.
Safest thing is to not do it in the first place!?
Sorry, but we canāt expect the organisation to do this, as we rarely agree and you canāt lead an organisation by committee as we simply would never get anywhere! We have already seen challenge through FOI, etc and we have the AOC saying no, so sometimes we just need to agree to disagree, salute and get on with it!
Iām not saying we need to be involved in every decision being made, but at the moment we have the complete opposite. I appreciate there is engagement on lots of development areas within the organisation, but many of the āstopā type decisions donāt seem to have any form of consultation with any lower level volunteers. Senior leadership seems to prefer the āDecide, Announce, Defendā approach, which is well known for being ineffective at winning people over.
4 Likes
The problem here is this decision isnāt just about car parking. Itās appears to be a fundamental change of how we manage āriskyā activities. A decision has been made to ban an activity that is done by many, and has been done for a long time, mostly without incident. Whatās next?
Car parking within the RAFAC is something I have done a lot of. And Iāve never been in a position where I thought things were dangerous nor seen any near misses*. When in charge of said activities Iāve always been strict in how the risks are managed in terms of proper briefings to cadets etc.
Cadets being out in the sun in 30C weather at RIAT is significantly riskier, as far as Iām concerned, compared to car parking. Yet that was allowed to continue. One example, Iām sure there are arguments against, but there are other examples too.
*(directly related to the car parking anyway. I have seen climatic injury near misses, but those would have been applicable to almost any activity we do outside!)
3 Likes
Risk - Tutors - propellers whizzing off, historic incorrect engine power settings (associated risk of engine failure?), cracks in trim tabs. Sure that there were other itemsā¦