I donât disagree and personally think that car parking is and always has been a safe activity and that we have appropriate measures in place. But the man at the top doesnât agree and has at least engaged with us, so donât see any further merit in challenging it, hence the âagree to disagree and salute, comment.
1 Like
And look at all the negative comments about the pause on AEF, Gliding etc etc etc etcâŚBut with ALARP by qualified and certified people it resumed.
1 Like
So, no driving to off-sqn events due to the unknown risk of uninsured drivers, vehicles with no MOT, drivers with no licence, drivers under the influence of drugs/ alcohol, vehicles with dangerous defects such as bald tyres, etc, etc.
1 Like
I donât want to sound ungrateful but it canât be avoided. The engagement has been very one-way on this topic. There has been no acknowledgement of the counter-arguments people have presented, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.
1 Like
âQualified & certifiedâ people were running the gliding before the pause. There were so many negative aspects to how the âpauseâ was handled (& the knock on consequences), I donât think that the ACC server can cope with the loading.
Please donât try & divert attention away from the relatively simple area of car marshalling.
2 Likes
Granted, but I am frankly amazed that the AOC has found the time to engage to the extent he has and undoubtedly has lots of other issues to resolve, so can understand why he has been brief in his responses. At least this has kicked off the improved comms and time will tell if that will endure.
2 Likes
yes and at what speed?
why are car drivers assummed automatically to be driving without due care and attention, racing at kids at speeds not suitable for the conditions?
precisely, which is as a deterrent is an adequate control measure against the driverâŚunless we label all car drivers as people determined to kill 13 years olds unless that child knows how to wave their arm?
We have no control over those influences, yes it is a risk with potentially serious consequences, but that risk is assessed by the hierarchy as acceptably ALARP, we manage our areas of risk by ensuring CFAV are insured, cars MOT, fit for duty etc etc.
We can influence the risk in car parkingâŚby removing itâŚby not doing it.
1 Like
Youâre right, but engagement needs to be early and meaningful. Even if the decision remains the same and we still donât like it, people will at least feel like theyâve been able to have a say, buying us into the decision making.
I hope youâre right but so far it also seems to be very one-way.
[quote=âsteve679, post:590, topic:14272â]
yes and at what speed?
Even at walking pace, if a Cadet was to be pinned by a car against another, then harm is going to be done to them. The risk rises if itâs on grass as cars have less grip, then it rains, or its damp, or dew. then weâve all seen the videos of cars sliding uncontrollably. Add a Cadet and the risk goes significantly above ALARP.
pilot error - doing formation flying illegally
Into a classroom, wrapped in cotton wool, learning zero life skills.
All hail the future!
5 Likes
No, we shouldnât accept what seems to be an irrational (emotional?) decision seemingly made with no evidential considerations or options to âpauseâ (ha, ha!) car marshalling pending structured engagement to explore ways to mitigate perceived risk.
4 Likes
even more so when since the ban there is evidence our CF cousins of the ACF have been demonstrating it is possible
And they have risk assessed it as safe?
1 Like
Iâm not sure you understand what ALARP isâŚ
3 Likes
I have that feeling about lots of people in our CoC at all levels.
8 Likes
OK, there is nothing irrational or emotional in my decision. The activity is not ALARP and is not Tolerable IAW the risk management processes I have to abide by. I will continue to work with the Cmdt on all such safety-related issues. Nothing is ever âoff the tableâ but I can assure you the âargumentsâ herein are not compelling. I also observe a poor understanding of our risk management processes and my personal (directed by policy) responsibility for Duty of Care of my Group. No criticism here, I have been doing this formally for. a long time (HoE / DDH / ODH) and manage a broad safety portfolio. I also understand the comms frustration - weâll try and improve and I will try and improve this (fortnightly Town Halls as an example).
But not irrational and not emotional. Thatâs not how I operate.
4 Likes
Presumably this means that there is a clear log of decisions made and the rationale behind them? Perhaps it would alleviate the criticisms if this log was released, with the rationale and evidence being considered clearly visible for all parties, as well as how the individual pieces of evidence influenced the respective decision points?
3 Likes
Thanks - but how can it be made ALARP / Tolerable? This seems to be the logical step - prove it to be safe / unsafe as per current protocols / risk assessments, etc.
1 Like