TG Forms, Policy on when required?


Although most is in the F3822 the one element that is not - and the sole reason (based on its title) for a TG21 form is not:


The TG21 form is primarily a consent form which has exploded into a medical document.
It only need be an A5 slip.
Name, rank, unit
Event, location, date
Declaration (words to the effect of): As parent of above named Cadet, give permission for them to attend the above event and should arrive properly prepared, physically and mentality fit to take part in the activity. All medical matters are accurately recorded in the F3822 (Record of Service Book) and will inform the Officer in Change of any additional matters that may occur after signing. Permission is given to participate in all appropriate activities.
Signed: ….Parent….


I disagree. It should be a medical form primarily, the consent to take part in activities is in the 3822. Take flying, the consent ticks are in the 3822, the health section is on the Av Med. That’s why the Annex A to the FOI documents ref: Flying don’t need TG21s. The consent is in the logbook. The health info is on the Av Med. That’s why you don’t need a TG21 for flying. It would just duplicate those two documents.

The lesson we can learn from this FOI is that in fact, the organisation’s policy places more emphasis upon the consent aspect of the 3822 than the organisation’s practice.


That is not how the black and white reads*

consent should be given for every event.
Flying IS given in the F3822 but nothing else is.

there is nothing to say a parent has consented to a Cadet attending an event, be it a Wing Athletics, museum trip, marshalling at a fete or a annual camp.
that is what the TG21 does yet it has exploded into a medical form for which details should already be listed in the F3822…

We should have consent from parents to look after their Cadets when “off Squadron” - i accept that
We should have a form for such consent - I accept that
We use TG21 as the form - I struggle to accept the consistent need to repeat medical and NOK details on a form which are already recorded on a F3822 which should be carried on every event.
they are a PITA for parents to fill out, known examples of misinformation from parents, and a also for the CFAV to collect in, file and store as required post event…

*taken from ACP004, Chapter 2, verse 2


How does this sit with information protection? It seems that over the course of your camp you could end up with multiple copies of this information being everywhere and uncontrolled.
I can understand why you do it, but the controls need to be in place.
As a member of staff I wouldn’t be very happy at all that my personal information could be treated in this way.

As far as I’m concerned in this day and age you don’t need umpteen copies. Just one set with the DO or main activity lead who are in a place where they are contactable and then if it comes to hospitalisation I’d get the hospital to contact parents/carers as they will know much more and if I’m correct with the NHS number they can tap into your full medical history. When I’ve been CC I’ve spent the vast majority of the camp in the office as that’s where I feel I should be.


I recently had several activities under one TG21 for repeat training activities. After the first one I scanned the forms and added them to the cloned activities. Meant I had access everywhere and didn’t need to worry about destroying the paper.


That’s why they are in sealed envelopes except for the original copies which are in the camp office, the copies which go with the cadets are handed back in to the office at the end of the journey or day.

It’s all well and good having just 1 copy which travels to camp with the Adj and lives in the office, but when you are dealing with 100+ cadets and multiple coaches they could be a long way from that form.


Surely this breaches data confidentiality by having potentially sensitive medical details for children and adults (which may not be currently held on SMS in detail) accessible far beyond those who need to know.

SMS already does a gash job at limiting access to sensitive medical information.


Why do we need to have such intimate health details, beyond say food and drug allergies and other controlled conditions such as AD? I was under the impression that with an NHS number hospitals, doctors etc are able to look you up and see your medical history. It is unlikely that if you have anything ‘dangerous’ that it won’t be on there and lets be honest they need to know and we don’t. If you didn’t know you had it, you be unlikely to go to the Dr. I only go to the Dr when I have something I feel is serious enough.


Give it a rest will you. There’s a multitude of reasons why that info is needed. Perhaps one being a station medical centre offering immediate treatment. Perhaps it being in a foreign country.


The station med centres would need to know if people have allergic reactions, on controlling drugs and maybe if someone is diabetic. But having said that most station med centres (if there is one on RAF Middle of Nowhere) I’ve seen in recent years aren’t 24 hours so you have to go to the ‘local’ A&E or get an ambulance. Which is where the NHS kicks in.

As for overseas, more of a need.

There are still many things people have that they don’t know they have that can flare up and then there things they may not wish to disclose unless they have to, as these forms are never entirely secure, especially if people copy them for others along the way.


This just gets better & better

In short - Nobody Knows! pretty embarrassing all round


I read into this that the activity commander can specify whether a form is required?


there may not be anything but when i raised with with my OC (and i purposely quote myself) he indicated the following

basically we should have evidence the parents/guardians have given consent for little Johnny/Jane to attend.
the TG21 form is titled as such - “activity consent form”

there is then an argument for OC’s discretion on which events require consent, but some would argue ALL activities require consent outside a Squadron parade night.


But even in the section you have quoted it gives the alternative of the ATC/CCF (RAF) consent certificate which is the 3822A and which is duplicated in the 3822, so am alternative case can be made that you never require a TG21 except for activities where the policy specifies that you must have one. (FT specifically mentions TG21 as an example).


For me, all the actual policy shows is that we have been neglecting the importance of the 3822 and 3822A. They are just as important as the TG21.


Clear as mud then.


Interesting FOI response on this very subject :slight_smile:


Vague, very vague.


It’s not vague, it’s very precise. A policy does not exist.


Matt speaks the truth