Just seen a notice about new TG 21 form v5, asking for cadets to resubmit TG’s due to the new version of the form… quietly released by the looks of it with no announcement!
Just a heads up for anyone else this catches off guard.
Also, do we know the future of the TG21 form, given that on SMS/Cadet Portal we can see all cadets details anyway?
It’s not specifically to do with visibility of details on SMS - We’ve been able to see those details for a long time anyway whilst still requiring TG forms.
The issue is around informed consent. I.e. a parent giving specific consent for the specific risks each activity might carry.
This is something which is being looked at currently and hopefully a new system will eventually appear which makes better use of Cadet Portal.
Already however, with the release of updated ACTO 10, many events now no longer require a TG 21 at all.
Where they are required the cadet can now grab them directly from the event on Cadet Portal so there really should be no need for Sqns to concern themselves with keeping abreast of the current version.
As has long been the case now Sqns are best advised to shred all paper copies of forms to avoid accidentally handing out an old one.
that has always been the case (providing the data is filled in an accurate) so not sure what difference the latest update has to TG21s as stated by @wdimagineer2b
Also the need for TG21s has been finally been defined when it is required.
Note: the TG21 is a Consent form, and is a written formal notice parents are giving consent for their child to attend an activity.
although now defined when that consent is required, for those events which still need consent I cannot see that ever disappearing, given these are overnight activities, AT events, flying and other such “high end” risk activities
Sorry, which bit are you querying?
the full answer:
I am not sure what difference the OP is expecting to happen with the TG21s going forward now we have an updated SMS/Cadet portal - we have always had the Cadet details available on SMS (as stated y wdimagineer2b) and so as the information the CFAVs have to hand hasn’t changed unsure what difference should be expected.
(in short i was agreeing with you)
Ahh. I’m with you.
The TG21 Activity Consent Form – Cadet has been updated to version 5.0 on 6 Feb 20 which includes the new travel and legal responsibility wording below. The Cadet Portal version of the TG21 linked to individual events has been updated to reflect the changes to the form.
All well and good - but not all activities are going through cadet portal - and it looks like where events have manually collected TG’s they are having to go back to the attendees and ask for them to fill another one out. Just feels a little endless sometimes!
We should never need to go back and get new versions of already-completed paperwork purely because there has been a change to the form unless there is some earth-shattering, critical new information on that form that absolutely must be reconfirmed!
As fixing a typo somehow justifies a new version number it could quickly get silly.
Cadet Portal has been updated with the changes for the automated TG21s that are created direct from the event: https://rafac.sharepoint.com/sites/cadetportal/SitePages/Cadet-Portal-Release-Notes-v1.0.17.aspx
100% agree and this is classic CFAV self-harm. There is absolutely no need and the updated forms should be used going forwards and not retrospectively.
Unfortunately I think therein lies the problem… many people don’t use them going forwards, but use locally saved copies many versions out of date. I appreciate that’s an education problem, but it is what forces people to ask such silly questions and force retrospective action.
They should be.
All activities have to be on SMS and therefore there is no reason not to push them to Cadet Portal.
I too have encountered people who will refuse to accept an older form, which is fine in theory but for the fact that most of the time a new version is created when someone removes a duplicate full stop, or tweaks the totally identical content to fit better on one page.
It’s madness to reject forms based upon such minor changes where they still contain all the required information - but it does happen.
From now on though there should be no reason for any cadet to be using an old out of date form.
Indeed - it is all of our responsibility to ensure that such localisms are challenged at the correct level and rejected where they seem like madness…which this one does.
Just to be clear - the resubmission of the TG requested is for an event that is in the future, but had TG’s attached with the JI; issued before the release of V5. Now the returns are in they are requesting another TG on the new form - CFAV self harm indeed!
That is another questionable action altogether 
Again, still unnecessary.
Whoever issued the JI needs to have a word with themselves then and start including links instead!
I often see emails where documents (rather than links) are sent “for your convenience”!
We do have some technologically impaired staff out there, but if you don’t teach then they can’t learn 
I know of a squadron that the Adj has to print out emails and give them to the OC. The Adj then has to reply to the email with whatever the OC writes on a piece of paper. I didnt believe it till i made an “excuse” to pop down a few months ago.
