Thatâs pretty much how we manage risk, yes. We assess the hypothetical risks, put in place control measures and keep them under review. If an incident occurs despite controls, we pause and reassess.
And we covered these exact same points with you already. Thereâs a difference between âhaving a viewâ and badgering people because noone agrees with your âviewâ.
So, stop arguing in bad faith.
4 Likes
Now i agree with that, my point was that you cant wait for an accident before calling a stop. It is just a diffetent view point i dont expect you to roll over and agree but would like to think we can have different views
Feels like the crux here is that although the evidence we have doesnât categorically prove the activity is completely safe without doubt, it does potentially indicate that it has been safe enough to avoid incident. It definitely indicates that a full stop isnât evidence-based (unless/except in a general sense that lack of training in any activity increases risk) and suggests that the door should still be open to a restart pending further review of control measures.
Just because it doesnât prove with 100% certainty that the activity is wholly and intrinsically safe, that doesnât mean itâs not evidence of safety. Whether deliberate or not, itâs misleading to state âno evidenceâ however strong or not that evidence may be in isolation. If deliberately ignoring that evidence when making statements to offer/further/support your view, that would be bad faith.
I could see an argument around the strength of the evidence, important aspects that the evidence doesnât include or consider, or putting forward an interpretation that it instead indicates that weâve been lucky when you add in xyz assessment (such as inadequate training and assurance). But not that it doesnât exist.
We also have evidence that other groups are maintaining a different perspective on the risks of the activity. They may be doing something different, they may be wrong, but again itâs something that should be a springboard for further investigation and discussion before declaring the conversation closed and all stages of RA and mitigation procedures exhausted.
I think weâre all (me included at times) getting caught up in absolutes delivered with high conviction and holding positions of totality, when thereâs a lot of crossover and agreement in the nuance.
1 Like
So you would call a stop on drill/first aid/fieldcraft/radio/sports/flying/gliding/classification training/STEM/flight sim etc. etc. just to âbe on the safe sideâ?
Careful, donât give people ideas!
1 Like
This strand has not yet focused on âtolerabilityâ and the imperative to continue with an activity where risk is present.
This is what they did to my aircraft modelling 
I am struggling to understand which bit is intolerable.
is the the concept of âuntrainedâ (ie no âqualificationâ) volunteers (be that Staff or Cadets) directing traffic?
or the potential risk of something going wrong - despite numerous control measures in place?
If the former, would âtrainingâ solve the issue?
if the latter, are there additional control measures that could/should be put in place to adjust the âtolerabilityâ while still making it viable?
it is baffling to those who have completed these events time after time, year after year, decade after decade without a hint of concern due to due diligence, appropriate actions, well managed control measures and suitable leadership that the decision has been taken (and the way it was).
I donât believe anyone is suggesting there is âno riskâ but there is clearly âlow riskâ given the number of successful events by adopting correct procedures and why despite this âlow riskâ it is still considered âtoo highâ to be a viable option.
if wet grass is an issue, add it to policy, event is banned if it rained 24 hours prior to the event.
if speed is an issue, add it to policy, site speed limit is Xmph
if âchildrenâ is the issue, add it to policy only O16/O18
As it stands I am not sure the CFAV cadre under stand what the âissueâ is other than AOC 22 Grp doesnât like it due to personal opinion
7 Likes
It is not a âlow riskâ activity. This is fundamentally incorrect and this is the issue herein. This is at least a MEDIUM annd possibly an HIGH risk. Again, I donât mean to criticise but the requirements of AP8000 and JSP815 are not well understood here.
As AP8000 and JSP815 are not on BADER SharePoint, you are probably correct.
13 Likes
JSP815 appears to be on government website
Havenât read it to see if itâs all there but Iâve had trouble sleeping this week so might do that tonight 
ok understood, but as these are MOD policies they would also also apply to the ACF - who are permitted have have been seen to be directing traffic since the RAFAC banâŚ
but that doesnât address my questions regarding âwhich element is intolerable?â
if the risk is âmediumâ or possibly âhighâ what are the missing control measures?
7 Likes
And AEF flying is âlow riskâ despite past incidents? Please explain.
1 Like
Itâs âlow riskâ to the RAFAC as the activity the RAFAC is assuring and recording the event on SMS for is the travel to / from the activity, whilst transport is a high risk activity itâs an activity that can be approved locally.
The actual AEF activity is provided and assured by 6FTS
Everything in aviation is measured & controlled, pilot aircraft flight authorisation, fuel mix
The variables are known & fixed. This reduces the risk.
Unknown variable bump up risk factor which you get when dealing with members of the public, cadets with non-standardised training etc
Cadet swim tests might be a better example for comparison.
I donât think anyone is pretending AEF is âlow riskâ. Itâs âhigh riskâ, but with mitigations to get the risk ALARP.
The question is, if car parking is also high risk, how do we add mitigations to get the risk ALARP?
Itâs not. Again, this is factually incorrect. There are several elements of Tutor ops which sit at MEDIUM risk. RAFAC flying in Tutor is assessed as ALARP and Tolerable.
1 Like
You could do, but its risk over reward so some things will be allowed to continue with appropriate mitigations, but think we are both being a bit flippant so maybe should agree to disagree as nothing is going to change
Start with applying the safe system of training to see which element needs the most mitigations.
Safe Persons - ratio, training, experience
Safe equipment - uniform & ppe
Safe Place - type of area, layout? Location of help etc,
Safe practise - how to do it
If you havenât got these elements covered itâs not happening.
1 Like
So we crack on with it despite evidence (past incidents) suggesting that cadets are more likely to come to harm than car marshalling?