We’re not that well off 
[quote=“incubus” post=2918]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 :)[/quote]
No you could well be up-to-date. I recall Go Ape coming off the approved activities, because of the level of personal liability I mentioned previously. At that time MOD and certain other providers including the Ropeworks near Porthmadog often used when at NACATC Llanbedr. That is reading that all is ok now though
Can you share a link to the AT meeting minutes or were they received by email?
I just searched “go ape” on sharepoint. I think it was the last link found.
The potential for staff members to have their backsides handed to them should something go wrong should be enough of a deterrent to bother trying to run a non-activity.
Instead, letting the cadets as private individuals in their own time organise something with their friends who happen to also be cadets is good leadership/organisation practice for them. Net result is the kids have fun doing whatever it is, while the staff can stay out of it and take a (much needed in many cases) break.
Has worked for us time and time again.
BPR.
Perhaps, but if I knew that a bunch of my cadets were planning to go paintballing I’d definitely consider doing a walk-on and shooting a few of them 
So are you saying that when camps are on annual camp, and the ACLO has arranged a visit to the station bowling alley or local Laserquest, cadets (and Camp Comm) are to say sorry we can’t go…
Being a parent myself, and it is parents that you are alluding to here to ultimately create the uncomfortable situation for the staff, I wouldn’t go chasing anyone in charge if my little darlings had ignored what they had been told and hurt themselves. I couldn’t have imagined saying to my children you’re not having a party in case someone gets hurt and their muum/dad sue us. Which is what HQAC are saying in effect. Kids will be kids and crap happens.
As I said about the birthday parties, we had them at our house and other places, just like other parents, but if anyones kids got hurt, oh well it happens. This is dealing with 5-15 year olds. I can’t think of many parents who haven’t organised things and what we are talking about here is a very similar situation.
If you are that bothered give the parents a consent form for contact details and add a line saying something like “we don’t hold the staff attending responsible for any injury etc etc etc” if they don’t sign then their sweetheart can’t play. Simples. This is in effect what the old form said.
I don’t know if many here are parents but if you are don’t organise parties etc for birthdays if you invite others and their parents don’t stay as you’ll be a gibbering wreck by the end of it, if all you are thinking is, will I get sued if they hurt themselves.
The ACP 300 list has some very odd anomalies in terms of what we can and can’t do. One of the CWC said it seems the more innocuous the more twitchy the big wigs get.
To put another slant on this…
Aren’t parents supposed to bring their children up so that they understand danger? If there is no chance of a payout would people be more careful?
Just my ‘two rounds’ worth.
[quote=“mike-foxtrot-lima” post=2930]To put another slant on this…
Aren’t parents supposed to bring their children up so that they understand danger? If there is no chance of a payout would people be more careful?
Just my ‘two rounds’ worth.[/quote]
Absolutely, but danger isn’t always very “visible”, especially from the perspective of a child/young adult.
While I think the attitude is different in countries such as the US, I personally believe we, as a nation, aren’t constantly looking for payouts and claims. Though this trend may change in the coming years.
Thank you!
Someone who doesn’t read the daily mail!
That’s not just youngsters, that’s adults of all ages and comes down to familiarity, there is a phrase “familiarty breeds contempt”. There are things I do at work which when I first did them I was ultra cautious due to the potential danger but now nigh on 30 years on, yes I am aware of the potential danger but on’t worry about them to the extent I did when I was a “boy”, as I understand the limits. Sometimes knowing the dangers and flauting them gets you a buzz and a resulting injury is part and parcel
But what we are talking about here in this thread are to all intents and purposes social activities, which someone who has no life IMO has said are toooooooooooooooooooooooooo dangerous for teenagers to do with a group from the ATC, but are the sort of things they can go and do with family and friends every weekend. I’ve known cadets who at the weekends go out with dads, uncles etc and do things that if we suggested them for cadets would have the H&S numpties at HQAC jumping around like Zebedee on speed and churning out reams of paperwork, best suited to 2 or 3 ply, if you get my drift.
It is somewhat ironic that we suggest cadets organise these life threatening, dangerous risk filled activities as a group of mates. I just wonder where the physically present risks and dangers disappear to just because there are no ATC staff around? If that could be explained without some flmsy, wishy-washy argument about ATC being liable, then the ban on doing them would be easier to understand.
Perhaps it’s got more to do with MoD bean counters than HQAC? Since we are not insured, instead crown indemnified.
Thank you!
Someone who doesn’t read the daily mail![/quote]
The Daily Mail is of course toilet paper, but to say that our society hasn’t become more litigious is a little off. The explosion of money available to pay for constant advertisement of claims companies is a valid indicator of the contrary, just as Ocean Finance was for further enslavement of people with yet more debt. Now we have Wonga, et al - which most people realise to be idiot traps; yet they are clearly making huge amounts of money to pay for blanket TV advertisement - just like the ever-present InjuryLawyers4u.
What we need is to pack all of this crap (daily mail, loan sharks, ambulance chasers) into a trash can and blast it out to space.
BPR.
:-/
Aha don’t take it personally mate, I didn’t include you in that category
Providing genuine legal assistance to people who have suffered needlessly is a noble thing to do. All I’m saying is that some parts of the industry are only concerned with money making - and those are the ones that give the rest a bad name.
BPR.
I would sincerely hope that someone at HQAC would have the kahoonies to advise that they should give their sphincter a rest.
Let’s face it we haven’t got anyone up there at senior level on a regular career bandwagon anymore, so why should it matter if they upset anyone. If I was sitting on nice pension and getting the extra bunce in a post retirement job, I wouldn’t give a monkey’s if I upset someone.
I worked with a bloke who retired early 58 and took a job at our place for about 6 years. He didn’t care who he upset and it was funny to see the look on managers faces when he spoke to them, but he did a good job so getting rid of him would have been difficult. I just wish that I felt more of our senior retired management were like Tony. He didn’t need the job. The majority of his pay went on holidays and into the companies pension scheme.
I’ve just read the whole of this string which ends Jan 2013. Its very interesting. I can immediately think of 3 things: paintballling; airsofting and [drum roll] gliding !!! Our Committee has been trying for this last year to work out a way of getting our cadets into the air “privately”. We can come up with … diddly squat.
Anyone else solved this problem?
Yes, HQAC have already said we can use civilian gliding clubs and that payment can come through them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks so much for this - is there any regulations surrounding it? ie - can we use ‘any’ civilian club?
in addition to the above regulations stating getting in the air without the MOD can be found in ACTO 35