Must have been the best year for completion yet!
Im sure that Heumensoord bar takings were the lowest they’ve ever been 
It’s the Nanny state I tell you!
That being said I don’t think I ever had more than 1 beer a night back when I did road marching, even at 18 I recognised that dehydration was a bad idea! 
1 Like
Wing/Region: “you must do the heat injury course by the 4th (less than a week’s notice) or be suspended”
Meanwhile, the weather:
The very short notice deadlines really are becoming something of a joke.
I dare everyone in your Wing to refuse to do it by their arbitrary deadline. It’d be hilarious to see them try to suspend everyone.
4 Likes
So those on holiday in or out of the country, working, in hospital as a patient or visitor etc? Sounds like the usual living behind the fence, mon to fri 9 to 4:30 attitude. I wonder how many will feel this is the straw for the Camel’s back and say suspend me!! If I was still inside I’d be saying suspend me.
Utter utter stupidity and relating to a health policy which has no scientific or research basis, which has been called out in an investigation that CRAFAC instituted as being not defendable in a Coroners Court.
3 Likes
We just got “activities already authorised are ok, but no new activities will be authorised past this date without the training completed”.
That’s a pretty sensible approach imo 
Paid staff or volunteers? Not sure the authority is there to suspend (although they can prevent you attending off Sqn activities).
Not seen anything local so not sure how they would get this through HQ as it sounds like a local policy.
How was this “SW” do training or be suspended message disseminated? I can’t see I’ve been told it anywhere
I personally received in an email via Wing HQ
1 Like
Ah, that explains it.
BGW doesn’t do Comms.
1 Like
My Wing (as was) has a lot of faults, but it’s not that batpoo crazy… Really needs kicking up, or a mass exodus.
I’m just going to wait and see if I get suspended for not complying with a rule I was never told to comply with…
1 Like
Can I ask the view of learned council on these boards about abiding by and implementing a policy that has no scientific or research based evidence of effectiveness of said policy when you consider that an RAF safety investigation has stated that said policy is not defendable in court?
Who is the person responsible, the person formulating a risk assessment of the activity in compliance with said policy, the person authorising said activity and/or their superior, or the person or agency formulating such policy??
If CFAVs are not employees are they subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, if they are not as such employees is the responsibility devolved to paid employees and the RAFAC paid uniform staff such as RCs and WExOs??
1 Like
We all know that HQ would tell you that you’re responsible, you’re at fault, and would then take great pleasure in hanging you out to dry.
2 Likes
Honestly, I’m effed if I know.
1 Like
But would they as a higher level supervision has agreed with the paperwork and always remember to keep a hard copy of all documentation as even electronic documentation can ‘disappear’ if you know what I mean.
I don’t think there is any black and white answer here. It’s lots of overlapping shades of grey depending on what’s happening, what you’re doing etc. It’s not as simple as HQ fault/responsibility, Region’s fault/responsibility, CFAV’s fault/responsibility etc.
At the end of the day, if the worst were to happen and a cadet get seriously injured or die, it will be someone from every level in that chain that has to appear in court.
The person appearing in court in particular the Coroners one is those who were there at the time and can give evidence of what happened.
HQAC will throw you to the wolves as a friend of mine found out as the RAFAC would not assist in his defence in court and he suspects played the ‘omerta’ card on fellow CFAVs.