Can someone shed some light on this.
I have known activities to go ahead that for some unbelievable coincidence, have squadron staff and cadets attending an event which isn’t insured as per ACP300 citing that it is away from the Air Cadet Organisation and that permission has been sought form parents and they signed to say they understand this is not an authorized ATC day out etc.
Is this actually allowed?
No. The presence of ACO staff imply that it is an ACO sanctioned activity.
There was a thread on this not that long ago - I think it was on this version of the forum too.
I think many people have been known to operate on a “well, if we happen to bump into each other at a thing then it is clearly a coincidence” basis but there was concern about ensuring that something arranged by people who happen to be in the cadets was not seen to be in any way an official cadet activity.
There used to exist a form which could be sent home stating that an activity was not an official cadet activity and that MOD indemnity did not apply. That was removed some years ago but if you ask me I think there is definitely scope for it to come back.
What would people be doing outside of ACP300?
I find myself being bloody busy just making sure my cadets do all the core activities as it is.
I can’t really think of any non-ACP300 activities that come under the headings of anything other than ‘fun’ or ‘social’, in which case cadets would probably have more fun without the staff present and vice-versa!
[quote=“the fixer” post=2897]What would people be doing outside of ACP300?
I find myself being bloody busy just making sure my cadets do all the core activities as it is.[/quote]
Probably because people get told they’re not allowed to do something, and get the hump?
Apologies if this is a duplicate, hopefully the Mods have a merge function! The question about flying in non-RAF aircraft with PPL holders prompted me to think, as I have heard of squadrons that have done this as a “private venture,” although staff have taken them.
Not at our place mind, I say no first, then research the issue :woohoo:
If it’s not a Cadet activity and can in no way be seen as representing the ACO then HQAC have little comeback.
Though I’m sure they’d attempt to ‘heavily discourage’ it.
With good reason…
It’s always wise to consider that if a parent reasonably believes that their child will be subject to the same level of care (even if they are aware that it’s ‘not a cadet activity’) this places the staff involved in a precarious position.
Should anything go wrong, regardless whether the activity has it’s own insurance, one could find oneself on the sticky side of a personal liability issue.
I don’t believe that a simple “I’m aware this is not an ACO activity but I allow my child to attend anyway” letter would absolve those staff from responsibility.
That’s why whenever my lot want to go paintballing or whatever I always tell them the same.
They can do whatever they and their parents like…but I don’t want to know about it. It musn’t be advertised or planning conducted at the Squadron, nor may they use the Sqn facebook group.
You can’t get someone to sign away their legal rights - or absolve you of your legal obligations. The form therefore is pretty much useless!
You can do things with are “fun” within the rules - say a visit to a theme park for example. But youd need to ensure that the event is planned, proper authority is obtained and possibly a copy of the park’s (for example) liability insurance.
What if the activity is organised by a recognised company which is likely to carry its own idemnity / liability insurance? Paintballing, Ice Skating, Laserquest, Bowling, etc come to mind. Its not like cadet groups can / are likely to do these kinds of activities completely off their own bat without going through a company that will carry insurance? Surely you’d sue the company running an event, not an individual involved in the event?
So where’s the problem?
If they DID run it themselves in a field in the middle of nowhere, then yes, I see a problem!
[quote=“James Blonde” post=2904]What if the activity is organised by a recognised company which is likely to carry its own idemnity / liability insurance? …Surely you’d sue the company running an event, not an individual involved in the event?
So where’s the problem?[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that.
The point would be that it would be made clear that the ACO as an entity was not involved in the planning and organisation of the event and that ACO insurance was not applicable. The private individuals concerned would be the organisers and would be liable for negligence on their part, as would the event company itself.
The form would be to act as an acknowledgement of this and permit/deny involvement on that basis.
This has been my argument for years, that if company want to operate a bowling alley, laser quest, theme park etc etc then they have to have all the insurances etc in place to even operate, because if they didn’t and something happened they are screwed.
What amuses me is that people will stop off at some food place and let the cadets feed themselves, who’s to blame if they get gut rot? Surely parents aren’t going to sue the ATC because little Jane/John started chundering after their scrummy burger, no they will go after the owners of the business. If only HQAC understood this all of the social activities that lend themselves to teambuilding (afterall that’s what they call them at work to get it approved) would be able to happen.
I wonder if you asked parents what would they think, probably not even bothered to answer the question. However this would highlight what a bunch of lightweights the organisation is run by.
[quote=“incubus” post=2907]The point would be that it would be made clear that the ACO as an entity was not involved in the planning and organisation of the event and that ACO insurance was not applicable. The private individuals concerned would be the organisers and would be liable for negligence on their part, as would the event company itself.
The form would be to act as an acknowledgement of this and permit/deny involvement on that basis.[/quote]
That is the point though…It’s not the ACO I care about in that situation. With HQAC/ACO out of the loop there is no top cover. I’d be buggered if I’d be taking on personal liability for little Johnny and 20 other cadets.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=2905][quote=“James Blonde” post=2904]What if the activity is organised by a recognised company which is likely to carry its own idemnity / liability insurance? …Surely you’d sue the company running an event, not an individual involved in the event?
So where’s the problem?[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that.[/quote]
Do what?
Do you have examples where say for instance cadets have got injured on a social; bowling, skating, laser quest etc and the parents have gone after the Corps.
Every weekend hundreds of thousands of kids will go on birthday treats arranged by the mum/dad of the little love having a birthday, this will go from say bowling and then burger to as my son did a couple of times, karting and my daughters went horse riding for one. We never stayed with them from about 8 onwards. If they had been hurt and I could be bothered I wouldn’t have gone after the mum/dad, I would have gone after the company running the activity. Where is this any different to a member of staff organising a night out, not very, except in the eyes of the anally retetive, risk averse numpties at the top of the pile and unfortunately similarly minded individuals around the Corps.
[quote=“James Blonde” post=2904]What if the activity is organised by a recognised company which is likely to carry its own idemnity / liability insurance? Paintballing, Ice Skating, Laserquest, Bowling, etc come to mind. Its not like cadet groups can / are likely to do these kinds of activities completely off their own bat without going through a company that will carry insurance? Surely you’d sue the company running an event, not an individual involved in the event?
So where’s the problem?
If they DID run it themselves in a field in the middle of nowhere, then yes, I see a problem![/quote]
Whilst I agree that most businesses offering activities will be fully H&S & liability insurance compliant etc there are some where you sign to take responsibility by contract beyond which it would be reasonable for staff to be comfortable without the ACO backing this up.
I am thinking of Go Ape type high ropes courses that we now cannot do because the sign up sheets require the over 18 to sign for responsibility for the under 18’s in your care’s actions leaving Go Ape only to pick up claims base on a failure of their equipment. So if a cadet messes up their clipping on to a wire and falls to the ground and the parents want to sue. Go Ape would reject/pass on the claim to that staff member/instructor cadet personally having signed for the responsibility. Having to take on that risk without ACO insurance backing is a big ask.
I have found that insurance is often used as an excuse for a lot of things in life, business and the ACO when it isn’t actually the problem, or doesn’t have to be. Seeing as the MOD self indemnifies for public liability, a public sector ‘cost saving’ I generally am not a fan of. It is particularly disappointing when they continue to restrict or ban activities (e.g. when ten bowling was banned a couple of years ago)
Going down the suing route… The ACO has a responsibility to ensure that any activity we arrange for cadets is adequately insured.
If we fail to do so and the activitiy goes ahead BUT it later turns out that they didnt have adequate insurance (and little jonny has an accident) then the ACO can be found jointly liable.
That doesn’t extend to stopping at a Maccy D’s for a variety of reasons quite frankly I don’t have the time to type out right now (and you lot don’t pay me by the hour either! 
)
[quote=“Pamela” post=2912]I am thinking of Go Ape type high ropes courses…
… Having to take on that risk without ACO insurance backing is a big ask. [/quote]
It is my understanding that Go Ape (specifically and exclusively, as a civvy high ropes provider) is covered by ACO indemnity policy. Worth checking.
It’s my understanding that all high ropes courses, other than those owned/operated by MOD or on MOD premises are out of bounds to ACO personnel.
My understanding is correct (ish):
[quote=“ACP300”]High and Low Ropes Course
Approved Cadet Force HQ courses only. Prior approval by Wg Cdr Phys Ed, HQ AC is essential - ATC and MOD-sponsored courses and HQ AC approved only.[/quote]
Changed and poorly promulgated more likely.
I am certain I have seen something at the squadron saying it was specifically permitted despite what it says in 300.
There was a HQAC ban on all non-MOD high ropes issued in Feb 11 but by end of 2011 I can see mentions of it being listed as an approved course in an S&NI document.
In fact, this wording (extracted from a Herts&Bucks AT meeting minutes) sounds very familiar:
[color=#0000ff]High Ropes Courses: recently further clarification has been received regarding the use of High Ropes: use of Commercial High Ropes courses have been reinstated but approval for individual courses need to be cleared through HQAC although Go-Ape courses and those on military establishments have a blanket approval. Again seek advice from the WATTO early if looking to use High Ropes Courses.[/color]
This may have been all revoked again of course 