TG21/23 now required for GICs - anyone know the full story?

I have just seen this distributed by our Wing…

anyone know the full story?
surely this is the fault of the Sqn OC for not pre-warning the VGS of potentially issues?

[quote]With immediate effect, cadets attending any VGS for GIC or GS gliding activity are to be in possession of a completed TG21 Consent form and TG23 Medical form, which is to be presented to VGS duty staff on arrival.

Background. A cadet, with medical history, on a recent GIC sortie unstrapped in flight and tried to climb out of the glider. VGS staff were unaware of the medical condition before the cadet was allowed to fly. The new process is being introduced as an immediate action trial, whilst further work is undertaken to examine how medical conditions are brought, most effectively, to the attention of VGS staff.

[/quote]

does make me wonder what the medical condition was that prompted a Cadet to act in such a manner and how VGS Staff would have reacted differently (other than - “you’re not going gliing”) had they known the condition beforehand

It’s admin as a pure backside covering exercise for VGS … when we are supposed to be reducing admin.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=13443]It’s admin as a pure backside covering exercise for VGS … when we are supposed to be reducing admin.[/quote]Agreed - re-inventing the consent/medical paperwork has to be one of the critical areas where the admin burden needs to be reduced but it will be a struggle to overcome some entrenched opinions on the matter.

we had an email off our WGLO explaining the 2 cases that caused the change in policy but I’m not sure a public forum is the correct place to post it.

The sum total was that VGS have no idea of the medical condition of the cadets unless they are doing the GS and as we all know mums and dads dont want little jonny to miss out on anything so tend not to declare medical issues as they should and then have the nerve to blame us if it goes wrong.

Even doing consent forms is no guarantee of finding out, mainly historic medical conditions.
As far as I’m aware the biggest problem for VGS is asthma. Many children are prescribed asthmatic drugs to help with breathing problems, despite not being asthmatic or they are asthmatic and do not have an attack several years prior to joining the Corps.
The GS medical doesn’t, as I read it, ask any specific questions, it is just a record check.
To this end the consent forms are going IMO to restrict the take up of late notice GIC slots.

what is I find either interesting or confusing, or even simply frustrating is why is this being applied to only VGS?
i’d have thought medical conditions that effect gliding are equally as relevant for AEF Tutor flying yet it would seem are ignored based on this policy.

makes me think some VGS has kicked up a stink and this has been a knee jerk reaction without any real thought about if it tackles the issue in hand…

Be careful what you wish for.

Yep a Vgs did kick up a stink, or rather raised a legitimate concern the cadets staying over on a GS course and the VGS has no idea of any medical requirements that there might be, that was changed about 6 months ago.

The inclusion of GIC ( since the first of this month ) is off the back of some incidents where I believe the cadets staff knew of the condition yet didn’t inform any of the VGS supervisors.

[quote=“Dasonix” post=13451]we had an email off our WGLO explaining the 2 cases that caused the change in policy but I’m not sure a public forum is the correct place to post it.

The sum total was that VGS have no idea of the medical condition of the cadets unless they are doing the GS and as we all know mums and dads dont want little jonny to miss out on anything so tend not to declare medical issues as they should and then have the nerve to blame us if it goes wrong.[/quote]

At least you were given a reason.
More than we got…

ABRT???

[quote=“Dasonix” post=13451]we had an email off our WGLO explaining the 2 cases that caused the change in policy but I’m not sure a public forum is the correct place to post it.

The sum total was that VGS have no idea of the medical condition of the cadets unless they are doing the GS and as we all know mums and dads dont want little jonny to miss out on anything so tend not to declare medical issues as they should and then have the nerve to blame us if it goes wrong.[/quote]

On my SCC they told us why and I concur with your thoughts (and admire them by the way, not many others would have chosen to keep them outside public discussion). Whilst the VGS course is one of the legitimate reasons I don’t think it was the straw that broke the camels back in this case. Otherwise it would have been if your attending a GS you would need TG permissions, not GIC as it now stands at.

Enough to say it is likely to be an issue that won’t go away and might ALL higher risk activities such as flying, using obstacle courses etc.

There is no cast iron way to resolve this.

If every single cadet on joining is given a form to take the doctor’s and this would last 2 years. But this would only cover current and historic conditions at the time as it does now, but only if they if I understand correctly there is anything that the doctor believes would inhibit a DVLA 1 driving licence being issued, nothing to do with flying. However this would result in a massive cost, so wouldn’t be considered.

Unless it’s a current condition requiring medication or a very serious historic one, parents aren’t going to mention everything. Anyone who has any experience of consent forms will know this. Parents don’t do this out of mailice.

Unfortunately I doubt the person(s) who decided on have this experience.

The solution seems to be add to the admin burden at the sqn!!!

I have always found it odd that given the way every single other activity we do MUST have a consent form or hell will spring forth, nothing is ever raised for flying/gliding other than for a GS, and nothing is recorded on bader for it either.

Wasn’t it the only thing that used to have consent (long time ago) having its own page in the 3822 consenting to being carried as a passenger in RAF and USAF aircraft if I remember correctly?

[quote=“tingger” post=13488]
Wasn’t it the only thing that used to have consent (long time ago) having its own page in the 3822 consenting to being carried as a passenger in RAF and USAF aircraft if I remember correctly?[/quote]

that page is still in the 3822 and i think cover

ATC flying and gliding (AEF, GIC and GS)
AEF flights in RAF aircraft
AEF flights in “other” military aircraft (US/NATO)
AEF flights in civilian aircraft

or words to that effect.

that gives parental permission for the named Cadet to go flying…

Has anyone got the official link to the message???

We had a sqn turned away from 6**VGS on Saturday for cadets not having their forms!!!

Email dated 23 Oct 13 from Logs5b entitled "Medical declaration for GICs"
Sent to all FGLOs and(in theory) promulgated down thereafter.

Yes but I don’t know how much is appropriate to put on this forum.
From what I have been told their has been an incident which could have ended in tragedy.
If the VGS had been made aware of the cadets medical condition then this may have been avoided.
I expect this will all come out in the wash once the necessary investigations have been concluded.
In the mean time we need the TG forms.

[quote=“romeo bravo” post=13516]Has anyone got the official link to the message???

We had a sqn turned away from 6**VGS on Saturday for cadets not having their forms!!![/quote]

RB - Just checked the Sqn e-mail, and couldn’t see it. If I’d seen this earlier, I could have checked with the WEXO when he came over to the mess at lunch time.

WSO Air Has issued something today. First I’ve seen of it officially.

Might have been to OC accounts only?

MW

PS for the tiny minority here - this also applies to CCF(RAF), email last week from Wg Cdr CCF to that effect. There was also a followup after I queried it, to confirm that school staff in boarding schools can sign the forms (ideally school medical officer but house staff also acceptable, or anyone who can act in loco parentis).