indeed - ALARP is the very much the important part here
what is it about the activity that suggests additional control measures would make the risk not reasonably practicable?
if the risk is not ALARP it suggests that there are additional control measures that do exist but are considered too expensive, difficult or too time consuming to consider and thus not âpracticableâ
what are these?
(and i wonder are the ACF and other applying these where the RAFAC does not?)
Yet youâve ignored responses aimed at engagement through exploration of solutions, preferring to defend yourself from an entrenched position while acting dismissive of expertise and interpretations of ALARP and the available evidence that we have in support of safe operations.
âNo offence, but youâre wrongâ isnât a conversation. If you want us to understand the process as you see and apply it then it takes a little more detail than just âyou donât understandâ to bring everyone into alignment.
I donât outright disagree with your position that (despite the lack of incidents) there are aspects which reduce safety and increase risk/likelihood, but a full and final stop is the last resort after âchanging procedures, changing equipment, increasing/amending training, additional external controls, and PPEâ. Iâve not seen anything to suggest that any mitigation process has been followed, and when I asked âwhat would it takeâŚâ that went unanswered.
Will in the heirachy of things H&S gussumps D&I, not all things can be run by committee, D&I is not a passport to all areas but should be where possible
Do you need me to call an ambulance?
What are you talking about Willis?
No just need smaller thumbs lol
Responding to thread about D&I , as some feel it applies to everything but unfortunately it doesnât
Diversity is having a seat at the table, inclusion is having a voice, and belonging is having that voice be heard.â. We clearly have no seat, we have no voice, and we donât belong; mere peons to be snubbed and ignored, concerns and counter arguments hand-waved away while lip service and platitudes are offered to concepts such as disruptive thinking and open conversation, it seems.
Itâs integral to good leadership, management, and informed decision making.
It affects morale, productivity, and strengthens esprit de corps.
So yes, it does apply to everything.
Generally i do agree, but somethings will not be led by commitee,
So, hereâs the thing I am struggling with and I hope @cab and @VirtualRealityTrooper can help me out with this?
We ban car marshalling because there is the risk that a trained and licensed civvy driver might have a collision with a cadet. Evidence is that this has never happened in the past.
We continue with AEF flying, despite the risk that a trained and licensed civvy pilot might have a mid-air collision with a cadet. Evidence is that AEF flying has had mid-air collisions in the past, resulting in multiple fatalities.
You keep banging on about being (or not) âled by committeeâ, but it doesnât require a vote to hear opinions and ideas from a wider audience before making a final decision. Those arenât mutually inclusive facets of decision making processes, and you are therefore presenting a false equivalence/red herring argument by misrepresenting the concept of consideration during decision making.
Itâs instead called âbeing informedâ and valuing your people.
So just because i dont 100% agree with you doesnt make it false or a red herring as I did say SOME decisions do not need a multi person (committee was just a phrase not literal) input To keep discussion within the topic , my only point is the AOC doesnt always need to come into work one morning and say i want to make decision can you get the organisation and include them all, then let me know if I made the right decisions, and who is to say it didnt do it with the higher echelons.
Maybe to find the longer solution D & I would be ideal.
Hopefully when town halls evolve into 2 way comms then we are getting back on track
As all drivers are trained and qualified, why are there accidents?
What evidence, do you know sonething we dont as no-one has provided evidence either way
We can disagree on the core points, but the definitive nature (and committee definition) of your implication is where I feel fallacy exists.
Youâre not wrong on the rest of it for the most part.
The only thing I disagree with is the âin the military worldâ part, because we arenât truly in that world, and the management techniques required* are different.
100% agree that in the long term inclusive decision making is an effective and positive strategy. The issue in this scenario specifically is that a (abruptly delivered and implemented) decision has been sold as final, as opposed to a pause pending investigation and consultation.
I too await in hope for this day.
âNeverâ is perhaps a bit strong, but there was an FOI link posted regarding reported incidents from car parking activities that suggested no incidents.
(* âRequiredâ in the sense that there is less strength of compulsion to accept at face value within the volunteer world compared to regular personnel or even private business employees)
Se arent too far apart, no offence intended, trouble i find with these sites is I personally struggle is with context and I take things literally.
My personal view is the organisation has got itself in a situation where everyone is trying to either get one up or trip each other up, plus everyone appear to be frightened of failure. whatever our view the car parking situation doesnât look like changing so maybe it might be better to use our enthusiasm to find alternative means.
I hope / am confident that when we get the new boss, we all can look back and reflect how somethings can improve at all levels. We have to accept some decisions will be made without our input, whilst on other hand a spectrum of working groups not just made up of nodding heads can help push deliverable, achievable and safe activities which ultinately our cadets can enjoy.
Read the FOI.
I have , as i said what evidence, the FOI is not evidence of whether the activity is safe or oitherwise, your arguement doesnt add up, everyone says there is no evidence either way and that seems to be the issue. Cant have it both ways
No, but it is evidence that there have been no incidents which led to this decision. A lack of injuries or incidents indicates that it is a safer activity than many others we do which have led to serious injuries and deaths.
And you have been told this, repeatedly. Stop being deliberately obtuse and arguing in bad faith.
Sorry i didnt reallise we all have to share the same view.so we all wait till there is an accident before its is stopped, that is also not right either, you may look at your own lack of arguement before jump on others.
As far as i am aware we are all allowed a view