I get that, that is how I interpret it but the IBN seems to leave some wriggle room.
As for 3rd party events (I’m thinking along the lines of a county fair) I don’t think we can really fall back on safeguarding. It will be in their T&Cs.
1 Like
If the rules have been broken, or are not clear, it might prompt further action.
2 Likes
This would be the bit I would be tempted to FOI “all accidents or near misses with drones/UAS of any description by air cadets in the last 5 years”
However, Could you be over thinking? It’s clear that drone policy has become out of date, the other cadet forces are doing different things & you have a DDH okay with what’s being done.
I fear that what ever new policy that has been written is already obsolete if nothing else through inability to enforce it and established practise in civilian life (which is what CFAVs & cadets are - the whole reasonable instructions vs orders thingy again).
Even if you did have an accident now, RAFAC could still be held liable for failing to publish a clear & understandable policy in a timing manner.
I feel for you & the hard work you’ve put in but it seems to have been over taken by events & wider society.
5 Likes
Maybe it’s about time that HQAC grow a pair and do one thing about blatant disregard to instructions. Shows intent.
Hold OC Squadron, OC Wing and Reg Comdt accountable. Oh sorry, it’s LASER 
5 Likes
So any event that has a drone flying is banned to the RAFAC, then that includes any event such as Armed Forces day where the police may have drone flying, or the Southport air show where last year they had RC model aircraft or the organisers have drone flying for security and publicity purpose’s?
At this point should cadets be going to air shows such as RIAT where I have seen three aircraft crashes, Woodford one crash, then we have the fool at Southend who killed people and nearly put a Strikemaster into the crowd at Southport the previous year.
So do the RAFAC withdraw from all public life where a drone may be in use, or have aircraft flying. Drones/aircraft are a fact of life.
3 Likes
Agree wholeheartedly
1 Like
Legal advice would suggest that prohibition of the activity more than covers any liability.
Nobody wants to prohibit the activity unnecessarily but get all of the elements and funding in place takes time. During this period the policy has been updated to keep abreast of the most recent legislation and best practice.
Yes, the entire project has been hugely overthought, so that when it’s launched the regions can own drones, deliver CAA approved training, and fly, with minimal admin burden. This involves getting 3rd party platforms approved for use and many other elements. And like all of you, the team has a life away from RAFAC, so it takes time.
1 Like
It’s that’s the RAF legal I’d be cautious.
Plus, they’ve probably assumed clear communication of a well written policy from HQ to staff which as we all know is less likely to happen than Sir Tony Blair being appointed as the next Pope.
5 Likes
Not what the IBN states. It’s incumbent on us to ensure we aren’t exposing the cadets to unnecessary risk, this isn’t just about a drone incident but could involve the digital and privacy implications. At the moment, permission can easily be gained by requesting it and a few questions being answered as per IBN.
So cadets arrive at an event in particular a big one and there is a drone operating whether, publically or privately owned do the cadets leave at that point!?
What about events covered by cctv or people with mobile phones filming the events or companies live streaming?
Using privacy or digital concerns appears just a way to ban any activity HQAC don’t agree with or want to authorise.
2 Likes
Technical question what’s the distinction between the phrases:
Legal advice would suggest
Legal advice implies
Legal advice states
Bob,
In that case, use your common sense…something that seems to be sadly lacking in this organisation.
I can assure you the only reason the ban hasn’t been lifted is process. The processes required to make drone flying safe and accessible to all. Obviously within the constraints placed on us as a defence cadet force.
There is nobody avoiding rolling this out or delaying any decisions through risk avoidance. It is merely taking longer than anyone expected due to some funding and other challenges. A official update coming in a week or so. Trust me on this one.
“Suggest” my interpretation of that professional advice.
Others are professional opinion on a legal course.
You raise the question, so what is the definitive answer? Use common sense and get criticism or suspension for not following safeguarding etc, or withdraw to avoid the same?
This isn’t the place to be making policy decisions. The policy currently is in place through the IBN for preplanned events. However, should anyone find themselves in an unplanned situation I think we can all apply common sense, with retrospective reporting to highlight the issues and how they were mitigated. If the individual who is responsible feels they can’t mitigate that dynamic risk or unwilling to hold the responsibility for doing so, the yes withdraw.
Notwithstanding the above, if anyone just wilfully ignored the policy to circumvent any oversight or perceived admin burden, as they “believe the policy is stupid”, then this would be treated very differently.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND NOT ANY POLICY.
Perhaps some official comms coming on this soon. In the next two-weeks would be my guess.
Policy shouldn’t be in IBN. It’s not only poor communication, but it’s opening RAFAC up to so many legal challenges. Put simply, any lawyer in my court room would face an uphill battle to convince me that someone following the ACP rather than a conflicting IBN has not followed the published policy, and I say that as someone who spent years dealing with litigation over government policy and which documents can be relied upon.
Policy should be in the policy documents. IBNs should only be to inform people the overriding document has changed.
4 Likes
Totally agree. But there needs to be an interim solution whilst the vastly outdated policies are redrafted. I’m new to RAFAC and IBN seems to be the only medium for this ?
I think what they did years ago with something (might have been fieldcraft/blank firing but I think it was something else) was publish the ACP as a one page document & said along the lines “the policy is being formulated until then you can only do it as an activity with direct permission from HQAC.
It mean even if interim IBNs were issued the policy was still in place & other dependent policy’s & ACPs (e.g. ACP300) could refer to the activity as authorised I.aw. it’s ACP so you did not have a bottleneck or a chicken& egg of two policies holding each other up.
I think one bigger issue is that you’ve stated above that it’s an MoD wide policy yet other cadet forces/services are going ahead & using them which adds to the confusion.
To add a hypothetical situation, joint cadet centre where ACF & ATC parade on the same night.
ACF are using a drone as part of their authorised activity. What do the air cadets do & what do you tell the Air cadets when told they can’t because it’s MoD policy.
The issue with fire risk with the 12x12 tents had been identified, actioned & dealt with by the other cadet forces several months before the ATC were aware (who then took twice as long to find out the solution already agreed)
Speculating a little, but particularly with the pressure on the paid staff what it is, could it be that the latest policy & decisions are not being past onto the ATC & HQAC?
1 Like